There goes my funds for a new computer.Harmor wrote:
Estimated $3,000 (€2,131) more per year. There goes my standard of living.ATG wrote:
Cap and trade passed.
There goes my wallet.
No you're not, your made of water.Harmor wrote:
Wait I'm made of carbon...
Quick hit on the C&T bill. Tax energy producers and consumers who are producing more than the acceptable amount. If a company is below the acceptable amount they are allowed to sell/trade the extra carbon credits to those who are above it. They will then ratchet down the standards over time to continually drive down the emissions. I also believe there is considerable verb-age relating to energy dependence. The numbers are around 50% energy independent in 10 years and 100% independent in 20 years.Spark wrote:
Anyone kind enough to give me a summary of the proposed C+T framework? This topic has been very light on specifics so far...
Last edited by LividBovine (2009-06-26 19:42:25)
I think I just burst a blood vessel in my left eye.... . Nutless Elephants...Kmarion wrote:
44 Democrats voted no..
What the hell is "energy-independence" meant to mean? I don't think carbon molecules wave flags.LividBovine wrote:
Quick hit on the C&T bill. Tax energy producers and consumers who are producing more than the acceptable amount. If a company is below the acceptable amount they are allowed to sell/trade the extra carbon credits to those who are above it. They will then ratchet down the standards over time to continually drive down the emissions. I also believe there is considerable verb-age relating to energy dependence. The numbers are around 50% energy independent in 10 years and 100% independent in 20 years.Spark wrote:
Anyone kind enough to give me a summary of the proposed C+T framework? This topic has been very light on specifics so far...
Edit: I wish I had a few grand to thrw into GE.
ScourceThe bill contains the following key provisions:
Requires electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020.
Invests $190 billion in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy ($90 billion in new investments by 2025), carbon capture and sequestration ($60 billion), electric and other advanced technology vehicles ($20 billion), and basic scientific research and development ($20 billion).
Mandates new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances, and industry.
Reduces carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Complementary measures in the legislation, such as investments in preventing tropical deforestation, will achieve significant additional reductions in carbon emissions.
Protects consumers from energy price increases. According to recent analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, the legislation will cost each household less than 50 cents per day in 2020 (not including energy efficiency savings).
Sounds pretty promising to me ( based on the above). There are actually jobs in this, so there wont be a large scale increase in unemployment. Good on the US for trying to take the lead. The rest of the world will try to follow, but you will have the jump on them as you will have done this first.LividBovine wrote:
Can't find the scource for the energy independent part but here are the other highlights:ScourceThe bill contains the following key provisions:
Requires electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020.
Invests $190 billion in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy ($90 billion in new investments by 2025), carbon capture and sequestration ($60 billion), electric and other advanced technology vehicles ($20 billion), and basic scientific research and development ($20 billion).
Mandates new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances, and industry.
Reduces carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Complementary measures in the legislation, such as investments in preventing tropical deforestation, will achieve significant additional reductions in carbon emissions.
Protects consumers from energy price increases. According to recent analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, the legislation will cost each household less than 50 cents per day in 2020 (not including energy efficiency savings).
Bollucks. There may be jobs in the switch, but what happens when the companies start charging more for the energy they produce to cover these switches and the carbon tax? Do they swallow the tax and expenditures? No, they pass the difference on to their customers. What do they do with the increased expeniture? Oh yeah, they pass it on to the consumer. Hmmmm, now what? Oh yeah, they have less money to buy stuff with, less reason for industry to produce, lost jobs, and higher energy costs. Great! That doesn't even include the direct cost to the Northern states that use more energy and fossil fuels in the heating of their homes.Burwhale wrote:
Sounds pretty promising to me ( based on the above). There are actually jobs in this, so there wont be a large scale increase in unemployment. Good on the US for trying to take the lead. The rest of the world will try to follow, but you will have the jump on them as you will have done this first.
Last edited by LividBovine (2009-06-27 00:48:48)
The odd thing is, in real-life cases where environmental regulations lead to a direct increase in costs, the company usually adapts by streamlining their product. Often the result is a better product and on occasion the company saves money [source: Hot, Flat and Crowded] (Montreal Protocol, anyone? Saved billions upon billions in net expenditure due to not having to store CFCs anymore [source: The Weather Makers])LividBovine wrote:
Bollucks. There may be jobs in the switch, but what happens when the companies start charging more for the energy they produce to cover these switches and the carbon tax? Do they swallow the tax and expenditures? No, they pass the difference on to their customers. What do they do with the increased expeniture? Oh yeah, they pass it on to the consumer. Hmmmm, now what? Oh yeah, they have less money to buy stuff with, less reason for industry to produce, lost jobs, and higher energy costs. Great! That doesn't even include the direct cost to the Northern states that use more energy and fossil fuels in the heating of their homes.Burwhale wrote:
Sounds pretty promising to me ( based on the above). There are actually jobs in this, so there wont be a large scale increase in unemployment. Good on the US for trying to take the lead. The rest of the world will try to follow, but you will have the jump on them as you will have done this first.
Why do you think they were putting provisions in the bill to turn it off if unemployment reached a certain level or when gas prices reached a certain level? They think this thing will drive up unemployment and the price of fuel.
Last edited by Spark (2009-06-27 01:51:45)
The idea about the US being more energy efficient is great...but the govt isn't concerned about the environment, they are concerned with finding anyway they can to suck all the money out of your pockets...LividBovine wrote:
In real life, most companies have streamlined. They are in it for money, no? There is usually constant improvements in efficiency. The move to different power source requires large sums of capital to accomplish. You even said it yourself, occasionally, saves money. You also have to remember we are dealing with the US government here. It is made of fail when it comes to implementing any kind of large program.
In real life, this is going to cost us a lot of money.
The only good thing is Obama can put any revinue from this program towards socialised helath care.
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-06-27 03:26:45)
Power utilities are one place where I can see not too much streamlining... just because of how they're set up.LividBovine wrote:
In real life, most companies have streamlined. They are in it for money, no? There is usually constant improvements in efficiency. The move to different power source requires large sums of capital to accomplish. You even said it yourself, occasionally, saves money. You also have to remember we are dealing with the US government here. It is made of fail when it comes to implementing any kind of large program.
In real life, this is going to cost us a lot of money.
The only good thing is Obama can put any revinue from this program towards socialised helath care.
EPA said this bill would prolly make the enviro worse. stop being such a sheep.Burwhale wrote:
BO was elected for policies that include Greenhouse gas reductions, so he is just sticking to his promise. You would probably also whinge if he did nothing.
Call me what you like, I really dont give a fuck. I cant see how this would make the environment worse ( happy to have a look at a link if I have missed it though). Its funny how I am a sheep for believing the climatologists and scientists, while the sceptics ( who are directly sponsored by oil companies) are much more believable. Personally I dont care, I see this as a step in the right direction. Good job USA.usmarine wrote:
EPA said this bill would prolly make the enviro worse. stop being such a sheep.Burwhale wrote:
BO was elected for policies that include Greenhouse gas reductions, so he is just sticking to his promise. You would probably also whinge if he did nothing.
If they were going to make money from it, they wouldnt be saying it is going to make things worse. Scientists dont really make " profit" , they dont make much money compared to other careers. They get grants to cover wages ( if in research) , no profits.USmarine wrote:
EPA said this bill would prolly make the enviro worse
er...wrong agency. sorry, it was the EPA that buried facts to get the bill passed. someone else said it would make it worse. cant remember though.Burwhale wrote:
Didnt you just say this.If they were going to make money from it, they wouldnt be saying it is going to make things worse. Scientists dont really make " profit" , they dont make much money compared to other careers. They get grants to cover wages ( if in research) , no profits.USmarine wrote:
EPA said this bill would prolly make the enviro worse
Sounds legit.usmarine wrote:
er...wrong agency. sorry, it was the EPA that buried facts to get the bill passed. someone else said it would make it worse. cant remember though.
you guys seem to have all the time in the world, go find it then. i am at work. cba to google right now.AussieReaper wrote:
Sounds legit.usmarine wrote:
er...wrong agency. sorry, it was the EPA that buried facts to get the bill passed. someone else said it would make it worse. cant remember though.
