Global Warming and The Economy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/news/economy/election_green.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008063005

Another article about McCain’s and Obamas energy plans.

I think the last statement of this first paragraph sums up global warming pretty well.

[quote]
What senators McCain and Obama believe about U.S. energy policy matters - hugely. To fight global warming, the next President will oversee the transition to a new, green economy, which will result in one of the biggest business transformations of the 21st century and potentially one of the largest transfers of wealth since the creation of the income tax.[/quote]

2

Interesting that they actually agree on the approach, just differ on the delivery (which they have to do to try and differentiate themselves).

3

On a related note, I hate how all these initiates get tied directly to global warming.

Pollution reduction and refinery improvements make sense regardless if you believe in global warming or if you just want the air in cities to remain breathable.

4

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
On a related note, I hate how all these initiates get tied directly to global warming.

Pollution reduction and refinery improvements make sense regardless if you believe in global warming or if you just want the air in cities to remain breathable.[/quote]

Everything is tied to global warming. Drives me crazy.

5

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Ruggerlife wrote:
On a related note, I hate how all these initiates get tied directly to global warming.

Pollution reduction and refinery improvements make sense regardless if you believe in global warming or if you just want the air in cities to remain breathable.

Everything is tied to global warming. Drives me crazy.[/quote]

That’s the annoying part.

Remove global warming from the discussion and now you have 2 remaining discussion points 1) Environmental - How will this impact our living conditions (ie. smog reduction/limit increase) and 2) Cost - short term pain for long term stability.

So where do we want to strike the balance on these?

6

Obama’s plan is a disaster. Make everyone pay more for power and let the government redistribute the money into welfare programs. What happens if we end up reducing CO2 emissions? Do we dissolve the welfare programs? This guy is very scary.

If you really believed in reducing CO2 emissions at least McCain’s plan makes a bit of sense.

7

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
…redistribute the money into welfare programs. What happens if we end up reducing CO2 emissions? Do we dissolve the welfare programs?..
[/quote]

Agreed. I never like linking one revenue stream to a seperate program. If he was to link the revenue to reductions in gas taxes then later you can more easily reinstate the tax since there is no/minimal impact to the consumer.

I’m not sure if I completely agree with McCain’s giving them away. I’d prefer a middle ground of “rewarding” producers or other companies that devolop technologies to achieve the goal. For example, the company pays up front into a Trust or some sort of segregated fund, then if it can achieve targets, it gets its mony back (and possibly more if it overachieves).

I’ve always found that if you give industry a financial reward for achieving, they will.

8

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…redistribute the money into welfare programs. What happens if we end up reducing CO2 emissions? Do we dissolve the welfare programs?..

Agreed. I never like linking one revenue stream to a seperate program. If he was to link the revenue to reductions in gas taxes then later you can more easily reinstate the tax since there is no/minimal impact to the consumer.

I’m not sure if I completely agree with McCain’s giving them away. I’d prefer a middle ground of “rewarding” producers or other companies that devolop technologies to achieve the goal. For example, the company pays up front into a Trust or some sort of segregated fund, then if it can achieve targets, it gets its mony back (and possibly more if it overachieves).

I’ve always found that if you give industry a financial reward for achieving, they will.[/quote]

I don’t see it as a give away. The government is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game and taxing existing plants doesn’t quite seem right.

Let’s get some realistic full scale renewable energy plants on line before we start messing with the old ones that are actually working and powering our lives.

Let’s not legislate ourselves into an energy crisis. Just look at what happened with ethanol. What a mess.

9

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Ruggerlife wrote:
On a related note, I hate how all these initiates get tied directly to global warming.

Pollution reduction and refinery improvements make sense regardless if you believe in global warming or if you just want the air in cities to remain breathable.

Everything is tied to global warming. Drives me crazy.[/quote]

Me too. It got me to stop watching television.

10

For the most part I agree, but with corporations primarily concerned with quarterly performance rather than long term profitability, I think a “stick” is required for change, the “carrot” (funds from Gov’t) are just a way to make it happen sooner.

From working in a large multinational, I’ve noticed that long-term plans with large upfront costs “get reviewed” to death, but when the shit hits the fan, things get done quickly,…and correctly or an executive loses his/her job.

Granted you can’t rush everything and we shouldn’t be pulling generators offline without being able to produce electricity through other means, but time lines with strict bonuses/penalties seem to work in my experience.

11

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Ruggerlife wrote:
On a related note, I hate how all these initiates get tied directly to global warming.

Pollution reduction and refinery improvements make sense regardless if you believe in global warming or if you just want the air in cities to remain breathable.

Everything is tied to global warming. Drives me crazy.

Me too. It got me to stop watching television. [/quote]

Did you go plant trees with your spare time? :slight_smile:

12

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:

Zap Branigan wrote:
…redistribute the money into welfare programs. What happens if we end up reducing CO2 emissions? Do we dissolve the welfare programs?..

Ruggerlife wrote:

Agreed. I never like linking one revenue stream to a seperate program. If he was to link the revenue to reductions in gas taxes then later you can more easily reinstate the tax since there is no/minimal impact to the consumer.

I’m not sure if I completely agree with McCain’s giving them away. I’d prefer a middle ground of “rewarding” producers or other companies that devolop technologies to achieve the goal. For example, the company pays up front into a Trust or some sort of segregated fund, then if it can achieve targets, it gets its mony back (and possibly more if it overachieves).

I’ve always found that if you give industry a financial reward for achieving, they will.

Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t see it as a give away. The government is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game and taxing existing plants doesn’t quite seem right.

Let’s get some realistic full scale renewable energy plants on line before we start messing with the old ones that are actually working and powering our lives.

Let’s not legislate ourselves into an energy crisis. Just look at what happened with ethanol. What a mess.

For the most part I agree, but with corporations primarily concerned with quarterly performance rather than long term profitability, I think a “stick” is required for change, the “carrot” (funds from Gov’t) are just a way to make it happen sooner.

From working in a large multinational, I’ve noticed that long-term plans with large upfront costs “get reviewed” to death, but when the shit hits the fan, things get done quickly,…and correctly or an executive loses his/her job.

Granted you can’t rush everything and we shouldn’t be pulling generators offline without being able to produce electricity through other means, but time lines with strict bonuses/penalties seem to work in my experience.
[/quote]

The problem is that this tax will not be a big hit for the energy companies. They will simply pass that cost along to the consumer. It will make alternate forms of energy more competitive but since we do not buy directly from a powerplant but instead through a distribution grid the consumer choice will be lost.

The coal fired power plants will keep chugging away and providers of alternate energy will get insanely rich.

13

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Ruggerlife wrote:
On a related note, I hate how all these initiates get tied directly to global warming.

Pollution reduction and refinery improvements make sense regardless if you believe in global warming or if you just want the air in cities to remain breathable.

Everything is tied to global warming. Drives me crazy.

Me too. It got me to stop watching television.

Did you go plant trees with your spare time? :)[/quote]

No. I burned more fossil fuels driving to south facing beaches.

14

This global warming Nazism has gone way too far.

Obama’s plan scares me while McCain’s is almost like he isn’t doing much but pushing it aside. Pushing it aside is a good thing.

If Obama signs the Kyoto Accord, our economy is doomed.

He probably will.

15

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:

For the most part I agree, but with corporations primarily concerned with quarterly performance rather than long term profitability, I think a “stick” is required for change, the “carrot” (funds from Gov’t) are just a way to make it happen sooner.

From working in a large multinational, I’ve noticed that long-term plans with large upfront costs “get reviewed” to death, but when the shit hits the fan, things get done quickly,…and correctly or an executive loses his/her job.

Granted you can’t rush everything and we shouldn’t be pulling generators offline without being able to produce electricity through other means, but time lines with strict bonuses/penalties seem to work in my experience.
[/quote]

Every time I hear about how short-sighted ‘industry’ is, it gets more myopic. Pretty soon, industries won’t know what to do next.
companies have been building and failing to market hybrid cars for almost a century. GE and Chevron are two of the largest contributers to “green energy” in this country

16

If “going green” is an economically viable solution then government needs to stand out of the way and let the market work its magic. Most businesses understand that it is more profitable to “conserve” energy and not pollute.

On a larger scale, when the prices are right consumers will begin switching to alternative energy sources.

Global climate change be damned. Economics determines everything.

17

[quote]tedro wrote:
… potentially one of the largest transfers of wealth since the creation of the income tax.[/i][/quote]

Phrasing that as transfer of wealth is clumsy. I would say that income tax is the single greatest cause of the loss of personal wealth there has ever been.

…the federal income tax was first enacted in 1862 to support the Union’s Civil War effort.
(OK, necessary. Valid)

It was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894, then declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year.
(But why?)
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.

Curious. How can courts make rulings constantly citing precedence and this atrocity passed and lingers? How did the US manage between 1895 and 1913?

18

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
tedro wrote:
… potentially one of the largest transfers of wealth since the creation of the income tax.[/i]

Phrasing that as transfer of wealth is clumsy. I would say that income tax is the single greatest cause of the loss of personal wealth there has ever been.

…the federal income tax was first enacted in 1862 to support the Union’s Civil War effort.
(OK, necessary. Valid)

It was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894, then declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year.
(But why?)
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.

Curious. How can courts make rulings constantly citing precedence and this atrocity passed and lingers? How did the US manage between 1895 and 1913?

[/quote]

If opposition governments have access to their peoples’ wealth via income taxes and inflating the currency, then we have to adopt those things as well. Its like an arms race.

Global warming was invented to eventually give sovereignty to an international body, such as the UN. Otherwise, some countries could pollute all they wanted while everyone else played by the rules. That’s why Kyoto got rejected by us. But eventually we’ll surrender.

This is all part of the anti-industrial revolution. If everyone is wealthy, they’re harder to rule. Progress has to be frozen and reversed. Only impoverished desperate people justifies the existence of a police state.

19

Global warming is the fuel that is driving the vehicle of anti-capitalism. It is no more complex than that. Unfortunately there are too many politicians and everyday Americans that are buying into this garbage.

Google the United Nations’ Ark of Hope or the Earth Charter and then tell me these people are not dangerous. This organization is rooted in Socialism and Global Warming is at the center of their agenda.

We really do have a lot of misinformed and fankly stupid people in this country that are buying into this. We should give the UN 30 days to vacate New York City.

20

Global warming, is a scam to set precedent for global taxation, which will then open up the door for more global taxation. We’ve already got the unconstitutional WTO dictating what we can and can’t tax, so this would allow the UN to levy and collect taxes, via the global carbon tax.

Man made global warming is b.s. and its only 30 years ago that these same elites were pushing global cooling.