Cap and Trade

how do the Dems possibly think that this will create jobs? if you punish industry, you are certainly going to destroy some jobs.
 
Buildings are responsible for about 40% of our energy consumption (this seems high to me...but I'm pretty sure that's what he said). It is believed that with proper design AND environmental control, we could reduce energy consumption of buildings by 80-90%....that's not pocket change in the least.

That's why I can see the reason the government wants to make sure it happens. But, why not try tax credits first - and if that fails, implement a more strict program?

Bye bye vaulted ceilings... or maybe even 9 ft ceilings.
 
I would still like to hear the rationale as to why they felt they had to go this route as opposed to aggressive tax credits....

I don't mean to sound like I'm behind this idea when I go on and on about energy efficiency, because I am confused by this approach. My main point is just that energy efficiency will be one of the most important means of achieving the type of emissions reductions they hope to achieve...but why this way?

I think our current Secretary of State said it best: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
 
imo, the pols who want power often use the ones (pols and voters) who want to do good as a means to an end.
 
This is the thing, and I think Rasputin brings up a good point. We are just building things that aren't very practical, but are very appealing. I built my house a little over a year ago, and I did 8 foot ceilings and it's not very open. We have all electric and the bills have been very low for the size of house that we have. It's like the Soccer mom who buys a school bus of a vehicle and claims "safety." Well, the roads would be much safer if more people bought a car that they could actually drive halfway decently, and would actually practice some patience when out on the road. However, I think it's crazy that we feel we need to dictate to people how to conduct their personal business.

Cap and Trade is nothing but a power grab by the global bureaucracies, and if it passes here in America it will absolutely destroy industry. The propaganda machine has been running on all cylinders for decades now, and it's going to finally pay off. I understand we need to look to other sources of energy, and we are, but that technology is still a long way off. Why can't we encourage that innovation with the incentive of massive awards that will be the result of that discovery with little government intervention?
 
Interesting little map here. This charts the cost per state.

Most States Lose Under H.R. 2454

Consumers in red colored states will pay more for electricity to make up for the shortfall in allowances (dollars in millions).

Based on the allowance allocation formula in H.R. 2454 for electricity consumers, the red states will not have enough allowancesto cover their emissions from electricity generation. The shortfall in allowances to the red states will lead to higher electricity costs for consumers, the total of which will roughly correlate with the dollar losses noted on the map. For example, Texas electricity consumers will see electricity costs go up by roughly $1 billion. To make up the shortfall, red states will have to seek high-cost, non-CO2 emitting electricity sources, reduce electricity production and consumption, or purchase allowances from the green states, or purchase domestic and international offsets, likely a combination of the three.

http://www.nma.org/pdf/061909_2454_map.pdf
 
Interesting little map here. This charts the cost per state.



http://www.nma.org/pdf/061909_2454_map.pdf

So, am I reading this correctly to think that Texas, who according to the 2000 census has about 7.4 million households, will see the average household's electricity bills go up by $160 dollars per year...unless they seek to buy cheaper credits from other states, invest in less CO2-emitting technology, etc. in order to reduce this increased cost per year?
 

VN Store



Back
Top