Cap and Trade

I need more info....

to comment on this, but I'm going to any way! It is going to be a huge financial burden on anyone with electricty. Those in the midwest will be hit the hardest. Even "just" $1600 a year will be a lot for our family!!

I live in Missouri here is a quote from our local electric company:

"Cap and Trade would work by slowly lowering the number of permits for emitting carbon dioxide available to utilities, manufactures and other companies. Under the plan passed by Waxman's committe, the chairman's home state (CA) would receive 200 percent of the credits it nees to meet new emission standards. By contrast MO would only receive 60 percent of the credit it needs. Missouri utilities would have to buy additional credits on the open market at a price set by auction. Guess what this will do to the price you pay for electricity?"

"As passed the climate change bill heavily favors states on the coasts while penalizing Midwest sates..."

I'm thinking we'd better be finding a way to live like they did 100 years ago! We don't waste electricity at our house, we turn off lights not being used, don't let water run while brusing teeth...I have never understood why people even need to be told these things!!

We have so many electronic devices now that require more electricity, and people have come to rely on these devices for so many things, and now they may not be able to afford them if this passes.

That's my uniformed comment.

Susan
 
I remember my first trip to a developed country. It was more than a decade ago.

I stepped out of the plane and into the airport and was D_U_M_B_S_T_R_U_C_K by the space. I suddenly felt absolutely tiny. I had never ever seen such a large airport. I felt like I was in heaven. Then I went to a washroom. I saw a great big mound of paper in a garbage bin that was larger than any garbage bin could imageinably be. Mounds and mounds of what looked like clean tissue paper. it seemed to me like people who lived with so much space had lost their sense of proportion and were tearing off humungous amounts of paper. I literally teared up standing in that public toilet for the waste and the trees. Through that entire trip I would marvel at the number of tissues people nonchalantly pulled out at a fast food place or the person at the take-out would put into my bag. Enough for a week.

My first visit to an office was a shock. People left the building leaving their computers on. When I asked a few people why they did not turn off their computers their faces showed that the possibility had never struck them. That night in my hotel room my mind was filled with thoughts of offices across this great, big country where thousands and thousands of computers were on while their users were asleep at home. It had never occured to me or to anyone I worked with not to turn off everything in the office before we left for the day. The opposite circumstance was inconceivable. not just from environment consciousness but from the fact that we did not have the money. I wondered how much money and fuel would be saved if everyone turned off computers and lights all over the world.

The waste was my big culture shock. Everything else left me so impressed. Especially that a country could create what I considered a terrifically decent standard of living for every citizen and take care of basic healthcare needs so nobody died of a mnor illness just because they couldnt afford healthcare moved me so deeply. And the media was pushing for things to be even better!

The sad thing is, that as countries develop, they adopt the same wasteful habits and excesses. 10 years ago, if I did not carry my own cloth bag to a grocery store in my country, there was no way for me to bring back what I bought at the store to my home, unless I wrapped my arms around everything. Recycled paper rather than plastic was used to wrap things you bought into little packets after they were weighed. As people acquire a better lifestyle, they are less committed to turning off electricty when not in use. Now, every store packs into plastic bags and food is pre-packaged in plastic bags. Apart from emulating the best practices of the developed world, developing countries seem to also acquire the wrong habits. I hope developed countries will take the lead on environment consciouness and set an example to the rest of the world. Alternatively, I wish developing countries would say, we can take the initiave to show the world the green way.
 
baylian said:
I believe the bill is 1200 pages long. Maybe more.

What I do know is that your home will have to be "energy efficient" before you can even think about putting it on the market. A Fed will come to your home to inspect it (hence one of the many green jobs it creates) and if your house doesn't pass you can't sell or refinance. Right now I have 40 year old windows to replace and a 20 year old heating system. That comes out to about $25000 that I would have to put in before I sell. Talk about a strangle hold.

This is just one of the points of this bill . . .
Click to expand...


don't know anything about the bill, but perhaps old homes will be grandfathered and homes newly built will have to meet these standards. i can't imagine that such a bill would pass as you describe...
 
Last edited:
susieq said:
It is going to be a huge financial burden on anyone with electricty. Those in the midwest will be hit the hardest. Even "just" $1600 a year will be a lot for our family!!
Susan
Click to expand...

What about the person/family making just a hair above the poverty line? They would get penalized by 'making too much'. Kind of like getting a raise that put's you in the next income bracket and discovering your take home is less than it was before your raise! :confused::mad::rolleyes::eek:;):p


parkercp said:
I found this article:
http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/07/cap-and-trade-extras.html
Click to expand...
[Quote from above link
Basically, those making no more than 150% of the poverty line, would get monthly cash payments from the government to offset the extra costs that are caused by this bill.
In other words, as your energy bill goes up, the feds will help offset that increase.
That would mean single individuals making about $17,000 a year and families of four with $33,000 in income would be eligible for energy payments.Quote]

What if you make $33,001? Then you would get nailed for $1599?


lkl said:
don't know anything about the bill, but perhaps old homes will be grandfathered and homes newly built will have to meet these standards. i can't imagine that such a bill would pass as you describe...
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Congress passed it now it's in the Senates hands.
 
susieq said:
I'm thinking we'd better be finding a way to live like they did 100 years ago!
Susan
Click to expand...

The Amish do although they use electricity for thier dairy operatons. But still thier day to day life is like it was 100 years ago. If they can do it so could we but they've got the land to grow thier crops and raise thier animals. I've told my DH we'd have to turn the garage into a carriage house and have horses. I would love that. He, not so much.

My mom who is now 76 says she remembers back in the late 1930's when they 1st got electricity because of the NEW DEAL. Now it seems the government wants to take it away.
 
lkl said:
don't know anything about the bill, but perhaps old homes will be grandfathered and homes newly built will have to meet these standards. i can't imagine that such a bill would pass as you describe...
Click to expand...

Someone said earlier that this was in the bill, but was removed before it was passed, which was good. However, it bothers me that someone thought it was a good idea to put in. Shows that lots of lawmakers do not know what it is like to live in the real world.
 
dorothyrd said:
Someone said earlier that this was in the bill, but was removed before it was passed, which was good. However, it bothers me that someone thought it was a good idea to put in. Shows that lots of lawmakers do not know what it is like to live in the real world.
Click to expand...

Excellent point!!
 
$1600 is the average tax, meaning it would be a progressive tax. Lower income households ould pay less, wealther households will pay more. That's the way taxes should work.

1200 is not long for a bill. I'd wager most congressional bills are about that length.

Ron Paul is an OK guy, but a little biased. ;) Take whatever he says w/a grain of salt.

OK then, if cap & trade is a bad bill, should we not make efforts to reduce CO2 emissions? Or if we should but not w/this, I'd love to hear alternatives from those against this program. :)
 
The bill was really more of an "outline".

I think we do a heck of alot in this country. We are not the bad guys in this.

I don't understand the thinking that the more you make - the more you pay in taxes. It should be a flat tax rate for everyone.

And if Greenpeace is against it - that says quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
A flat tax % would have the wealthier paying more because a % of their income is more than a % of a poorer person. I think Baylian's point is that we should not have income based tax brackets.

The problem with this bill is smashing into place something that financially, we are not ready for. More development on fuels that reduce emissions needs to take place. This is a swoop down and wipe out the emissions, no matter the cost of ramification. More thought needs to be taken. It is too rash....especially with all the other financial issues going on.
 
LauraMax said:
$1600 is the average
Ron Paul is an OK guy, but a little biased. ;) Take whatever he says w/a grain of salt.
:)
Click to expand...

He has a point of view, like every politician from every perspective. They're all biased in that way.

Anyway Dr Paul didn't write this piece.
 
sparrow13 said:
He has a point of view, like every politician from every perspective. They're all biased in that way.

Anyway Dr Paul didn't write this piece.
Click to expand...

That's very true. True of most individuals, in fact. That's why I was trying to find sources that weren't from either side of the aisle.

You're right, I re-read more carefully, he didn't write the piece. It was a collaboration of conservative legislators, not just one. ;)
 
Tamrahan said:
Carola, if you're out there, I would really like to hear your thoughts on this bill.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't even read this thread until someone PMed me.

My understanding of cap and trade is that each large-scale emitter (not talking about any single family homes) has a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas they can emit plus they must have an emissions permit for every ton of carbon dioxide they release into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforcable limit - a cap on the amount of greenhouse gas the company is allowed to blow into the atmosphere. Over time the limits become stricter / less.

It is similar to the Clean Air Act of 1990 which limited the amount of sulfur emissions to address acid rain. I guess there was a similar discussion or uproar about the cost. Early estimates were that cutting sulfur dioxide emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act would cost utilities $4 billion to $5 billion annually, according to a 1997 Economic Policy Institute briefing paper. But costs shrank due to technological advancements and a switch to lower-sulfur fuel. Utilities actually saved at least $150 million in 1994 through steps taken to comply with the new law.

The trade part means that for some companies it is easier and they will be more effective in eliminating or decreasing their carbon monoxide output and staying under the limit. Those companies can sell the "left over" permits to other companies who have more of a problem staying below the limit. Thus the overall output would be reduced. This creates a system that guarantees a set level of overall reductions, while rewarding the most efficient companies.

Companies unable to meet their emissions quotas could purchase allowances from other companies that have acquired more permits than they need to account for their emissions. The cost of buying and selling these credits would be determined by the marketplace, which in theory over time would reduce the cost of trading the credits as trading becomes more widespread and efficient.

As I understand it the bill is meant to not only decrease emissions over time but to also stabilize prices in the energy market. Not only does the burning of gas, coal and oil for energy effect the environment negatively but it is also subject to price fluctuations based on factors outside our control (i.e. OPEC). The energy companies in AZ have started to convert to solar energy which in my opinion will greatly benefit consumers not only because of the decreased gas emissions but also because it will keep the prices stabil by not depending on gas, coal or oil prices.

But obviously there are also some unknowns like how fast the technology for green energy will advance. As for the states who will be using solar energy or wind energy, it will depend on how fast the prices for solar panels or wind turbines will come down. I don't think it is a matter of IF they come down, it's a matter of when and how much. But even based on the current prices it would make sense to convert, from a price point of view and from an environmental point of view.

There was a pretty good article in Businessweek the other day http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_28/b4139029318684.htm

I haven't read the whole bill, only parts of it - I was kinda busy working :eek: - I think there are a few kinks that need to be worked out or clarified but overall I am fine with the bill.

I agree, we do a heck of a lot in this country ...... a heck of a lot to contribute to polluting. And if we are the greatest country on Earth as we like to claim then maybe we should act and not sit back and say "why don't they do it first?"

Greenpeace opposes the bill because it is not sweeping enough and according to them the "allowances" for emissions output is too high. Personally, I'd rather see more strict emission limits and faster implementation but don't think it is possible and I rather have it implemented over time than not at all and staying with the status quo.

ETA: What is that $ 1,600 tax that has been referred to in this thread. I am not saying it's not there, I just haven't read anything about it, other than here.
 
Last edited:
LauraMax said:
BTW, I posted the same Businessweek articles last week as well. Quit copying. LOL!
Click to expand...


Oops! :eek: Sorry, I missed it!

Ahhh, now I get it, I have read other "reports" that the additional cost per family would be $ 3,100 but it wasn't referred to as a tax.
 
Thanks for your POV Carola. I was talking to a coworker about it this weekend and I've printed your response and will show it to them and DH as well as Dorothy's, Sparrows, and Laura's too. Thanks to all for the info.

In the link that Parkercp provided I see there is a link to the actual bill-all 1428 pages of it.
 
dorothyrd said:
Someone said earlier that this was in the bill, but was removed before it was passed, which was good. However, it bothers me that someone thought it was a good idea to put in. Shows that lots of lawmakers do not know what it is like to live in the real world.
Click to expand...


lawmakers are getting rich taking money from the people writing these bills (corporations/special interests). warren beaty did a movie years ago about this, Bullsworth. it's an accurate portrayl of what takes place in washington.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top