digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at redgreenandblue.org —

House Finally Releases Plan for Carbon Cap and Trade

redgreenandblue.org — Leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have finally released their highly-anticipated draft legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jerryjamesstone, on 10/09/2008, -5/+20Whoa. A plan, from government? Awesome....It would be nice if this pans out.
    • agentem, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2Yeah, the government has a pretty good track record with 'getting things done' lately.

      Cap and trade is just another tax on the things that we already do. The last thing I want is for the government to have more of my money.
      • ksmcafee, on 10/10/2008, -2/+3I remember talking about this in university 3 or 4 years ago and this is actually something that economists have been proposing for years now as it is far more effective and efficient then the current model we have. It's really exciting to see that this is finally in place, as its a huge step in the right direction.

  • davidryal, on 10/10/2008, -2/+19cap and trade will be much easier to enforce under martial law. good timing.
    • daonlyfreez, on 10/10/2008, -3/+2Oh please...

      As if the government would care about the environment under martial law.

      They could (and would) enforce all kinds of things, but _not_ touch current business profit margins (which is inevitable if government is serious about environment protecting measures). They are touching big business with silk gloves right now, let alone under martial law...

      Nice sounding promise from the government (though very shallow as expected), but hollow rhetoric without real measures.

      We have a serious problem with the emitions from fuel burning engines, if you refuse to see that, but instead try pointing to imaginary "eco-communism/terrorism forcing me to be considerate and think about the waste I produce, while I don't want to"... you are looking in the wrong direction, that is not where the threat is.
    • supreme0armor, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2breathing tax...
  • SilicoSurfer, on 10/10/2008, -3/+14"80 percent reductions by 2050" - Whoa! That's more than just lip service!
  • niccha, on 10/10/2008, -4/+4A promising start
  • Yatata, on 10/10/2008, -2/+4I wanna say not bad, but watch this: http://vimeo.com/1709110?pg=embed&sec=1709110
  • samotage, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2mmm, a plan so cunning, you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel.
  • WhipTail, on 10/10/2008, -3/+5I read that as House as in... Hugh Lourie. I was confused as i didnt see as how it was that show's respsibility.
    • ak1200, on 10/10/2008, -1/+7Yeah, I immediately thought the same thing, and now find myself greatly disappointed that a fictitious diagnostic doctor from television isn't doing his part in saving our world.
    • isaaciaggard, on 10/10/2008, -0/+5It's lupus.
      • counterplex, on 10/10/2008, -0/+4No fever, swollen glands or any rashes; can't be lupus.
  • Shadow120, on 10/10/2008, -2/+8Holy *****.

    I thought it said House MD releases plans for cartoon cap! I thought he was going to the loony-toons ball game!
  • Jareth86, on 10/10/2008, -1/+6That Dr. House. Is there no problem he can't solve?
    • isaaciaggard, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3The random pain and meaninglessness that is life?




      too dark?
  • TheRhinoceros, on 10/10/2008, -5/+2Any start is a good start. A bit too slow on the start but the end number is good. Hopefully we can alter and in some measure speed up the beginning numbers after having the law on the books for a few years, if It passes.

    Dugg.
  • nevetssav, on 10/10/2008, -2/+2Has anyone gotten the PDF of the actual bill to work yet?
  • seomike, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4If it goes the same way the bail out went... The Earth is screwed.
  • zerhynn, on 10/10/2008, -1/+6On a related note, House was quoted as saying that the problem was definitely not Lupus.
  • bryanedds, on 10/10/2008, -7/+16Hooray! Less freedom! Please take away my rights to self-ownership and private property! I'm too economically illiterate to see that anything government does will makes us worse off overall! Please, government, please come and rape my freedoms for a plan that cannot but make society suffer ever more! I wanna be a slave! I wanna suffer! Not later! TODAY!

    Environmentalism - the creed of slaves!
    • bryanedds, on 10/10/2008, -6/+4For Red Pill, please see here - http://jim.com/econ/chap01p1.html
      For Blue Pill, please click Bury Button at top right.

      Have a nice day.
    • FairDinkumMate, on 10/10/2008, -4/+5Hey MORON - As soon as you figure out a way to either:

      A) Capture & neutralise any carbon emissions you produce

      or

      B) Keep the ridiculous volume of carbon emissions you produce within your own airspace

      STFU!!!

      I live in Brazil & it amaxes me every day as another American tries to dictate to Brazilians how to fix the Amazon while producing more carbon per capita than most other countries on earth!
    • ratexla, on 10/10/2008, -2/+4According to the Stern report, doing nothing about climate change will cost us 20% of gross worlp product. Trying to stabilize it now would cost 1% of GWP...
    • ksmcafee, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2you re a ***** idiot. this plan is actually quite a step up from the one in play here. whether you like it or not we have a market failure via property right definitions that creates a negative externality hence pushing the society's optimal equilibrium outside the boundaries of normal efficient equilibrium. the cap and trade program aims to solve this issue by raising the marginal cost curves of private firms so that they effectively produce the societal optimal quantity. this is no way effects freedoms. as a free-market economist i do understand your stance against regulation, however you must keep in mind that the PRIVATE INDUSTRY has actually lobbied for this to happen for years now while economist actually supported it as well. I'm just glad the government finally realized that this applies to carbon as well as the other emissions that this standard is already applicable to and has been for years.

      Stop acting like you understand ***** about personal liberties or economic assumptions surrounding them, you re making yourself sound like a fool.
  • seomike, on 10/10/2008, -7/+10You know the first sea charts of Mexico drawn back in the 1500 early 1600's had the Yucatan as an Island. The further along you get into the 1600th century the charts show more and more land appear.

    If that was normal then, and we put you liberal tards back in time, you would be flipping out about how the seas are drying up and how we need to tax the world and burn a lot of ***** to heat things up to keep it that way.

    The Ozone hole will get bigger and we'll all die...
    Acid rain will kill our crops...
    Climate change...

    What's the next bitch du jour?

    The Earth changes climate-wise on it's own with or without our influence. Who are we to say what it's perfect temperature or climate is.
    • frazw, on 10/10/2008, -2/+5I'll tell you who we are. We are the people who have to live on this planet. Rising water means flooding. People die. Increased temperatures mean hurricanes etc. People die. An ice age means people die.
      Whether you agree or disagree that mankind as the cause, we still need to live here. Like it or not we DO have an effect, perhaps not the only one, the ozone hole is proof, the keeling curve is proof. We do affect our planet.
      If the planet is a self correcting mechanism in situations like this then the end result will be to get rid of us. Climate change will be the modus operandi.
      If we can do something we should.
      Oh and calling everyone who disagrees with you a "liberal tard" says more about your intelligence than theirs.
      Anyway it isn't just about climate change it is also about air quality, and atmospheric contaminants that affect your health that really don't need to be in the air in the first place. They are only their due to laziness and not wanting to disrupt the status quo.
      • frazw, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2Oops I meant "only THERE due to laziness"
      • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2What's it say about your intelligence that you think someone's going to drown in water rising at less than an inch a year! You've drunk the cool-aid, seen the movies, and now feel the proper amount of fear. Good for you.

        What about warmer temperatures leading to more arable land? What about the fact that cold weather kills more people than warm weather? If an ice age is a concern, we should be pumping MORE greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, right?

        Just because someone doesn't agree with you on man-made climate change does not mean they don't care about the environment. I'm against coal-fired power plants that don't scrub the mercury and other heavy metals from their exhaust. I'm for regulations that restrict the output of contaminates. But I don't buy the notion that we need to consider NOW to be some kind of environmental baseline that represents perfection. The oil fields of Saudi Arabia used to be swampy. The only climate constant is change. I'm really tired of the "sky is falling" alarmism.
      • frazw, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2I don't think people are going to drown in water rising at less than an inch a year, I think people are going to drown, or lose their possessions or livelihood as they are doing in flash floods which are becoming increasingly common at least in the UK. We are an island nation so we see these things more than you might.
        Anyway you are telling me I have drunk the cool-aid? I am hardly afraid, these things will probably never significantly affect me in my lifetime so why should I be worried about it? Oh and I haven't seen any movies about it either, I happen to be an actual scientist (as opposed to an armchair one) having studied physics and chemistry at university level and chemistry at postgraduate level and have come to my conclusions based on my understanding of the chemistry involved.
        Warmer temperatures may be good for crops but unstable weather, excessive rain and flash flooding are not nor are increases in disease carrying insect population. The crops end up rotting in the ground as happened here in the UK this Autumn.

        Regardless you miss my point. Warmer climate (regardless of cause) means more extreme weather, less landmass, more insects. You might not buy the notion that NOW should be a baseline but I prefer it to a world of hurricanes, flooding, land and consequent food shortage and malaria or a world of freezing temperature should the opposite happen.

        The point is that this climate works for us so we need to preserve it for our own sake. The world will be fine either way, we might not be.

        If you are cynical enough to think this is all about governments wanting to tax you you are a fool. If a government wants to tax you they will always find a way, just with another cause you are perhaps more in tune with. On the other hand oil companies have a vested interest in being able to continue selling their wares just like tobacco companies who embarked on a propaganda campaign way back. Add to that the fact that the USA dragged its heels compared to the rest of the world in commiting to the environment and that oil companies have the ear of the president. Perhaps you have fallen for the oil company propaganda. Just a suggestion since I don't know how you came to your position.

        Anyway I doubt anything I say to you will change your mind. You might change mine if you can give me a reason to.
      • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -1/+1@frazw

        Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I retract my accusation of cool-aid drinking and apologize for questioning your intelligence.

        Please don't give me this B.S. about oil company propaganda, though. I believe as I do because I want what's best for the world -- just like you. I don't want dirty air or water, and I don't want anyone to die.
    • nevetssav, on 10/10/2008, -2/+2@seomike:

      I appreciate the scientific evidence that backs up your claims.
      • seomike, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2I went to the little library down the street and browsed some books on mesoamerica and saw a map that was one of the first ever made of the yucatan. The commentary was there are no ruins across the base of the peninsula of the yucatan because it was all underwater. Funny how that works. The map was made at the closing of the medieval warm period that is well documented as fact. soooooo you fail.
  • mike17032, on 10/10/2008, -5/+9Just the time we need to be gimping our economy.
    • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3If the legislation said "80% reduction by MID THURSDAY NEXT WEEK" then I'd agree with you. This is forty years, which is plenty of time for green overhauls of factories to become cheaper.

      Second, I disagree that environmentalism is bad for the economy. I don't even know how many companies have started up as the green economy went mainstream. It's time for us to start taking baby steps towards getting our old, 20th century businesses to start taking it seriously, too. Forty years is a long time for them to do it, but I'm willing to bet 90% of them will find ways to beat that regulation by at least a decade and a half.
  • RationalXubrnce, on 10/10/2008, -5/+8Cap and Trade is about the worst idea I've ever heard of. Karl Marx would get wood at the very thought of it.

    And to think we have the nerve to plan 42 years is out is unbelievable. Would you want to respect an energy bill written in 1966? Besides the way this country is going we might not last that long.
    • ratexla, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4Actually, an 80% emission reduction by 2020 has been recommended by someone who doesn't want the politicians to wimp around, so... :)
    • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4Rational: Oh wow, you're saying we should ignore legislation because it's "old" or something? I think I would respect something from 1966. Why wouldn't I? I love democracy and respect its outcomes, even if I don't agree with some of them (the war in Iraq, for one example).

      By the same logic you can say that the Bill of Rights should be ignored, since it was written way, way, waaaay back in the 1780s! Who respects stuff written over two hundred years ago, anyway?
    • nevetssav, on 10/10/2008, -2/+2The United States pioneered the Cap and Trade system in california when it capped acid-rain production. And Marx wouldn't really care, because he'd say that the government should nationalize the power companies (and all private industry, for that matter).
      • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2Of course none of this is Marxian, but these knobs label anyone to the left of Trent Lott a Marxist. I'd say that Marx wouldn't have anything less than the complete democratization of all of society. What does this have to do with anything Marx proposes?

        This proposal simply nationally modifies the corporate self propagation pathology to include not poisoning the environment as a result of doing business. It's crazy that we allow companies to simply outsource unfavorable parts of their business model into our water and air.
  • Meocross, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3HD House finally Releases Plan for Carbon Crap and Trade..
  • digghasnoethics, on 10/10/2008, -2/+4Notice how they are saying X% reduction from 2005 levels?

    Everyone else talks about reduction from 1990 levels. Targets like "20% by 2020". Talking about 2005 is basically a con to make it look like the US is in some way comparable with everyone else.

    Luckily the load of bankers is going to do what the politicians can't - only they are going to do it by totally screwing up the economy and collapsing the demand because nobody can afford to pollute.
    • nevetssav, on 10/10/2008, -2/+3Everyone else chooses 1990, because the Soviet Union fell in 1991, and with it, they closed their major factories - very,very high pollutant. That means the EU (which has a net reduction commitment) was already moved much closer to their goal.

      For an extreme example, if we had put our "base level" to the middle of the industrial revolution, when factories were spewing out black coal like they were actually producing it, we could be ahead of that now, and we'd say that we're meeting our reduction goal!

      Talking about 2005 for the US is better than talking about 1990 for Europe.
  • MooseOfReason, on 10/10/2008, -5/+7When the House passes a bill, they do nothing but trouble.

    This is no exception.

    Say no to cap and trade!

    Especially in harsh economic times. How are we going to afford this?
    • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2Buried for being anti-democracy.
    • nevetssav, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2How are you going to afford having 6% cleaner emissions over the next 12 years?


      Easily.
    • ksmcafee, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2@Moose

      because its cheaper then the current way that these emissions are regulated and i can give you my 274 page college thesis showing you how its the most cost effective and cheapest way to obtain the efficient equilibrium needed in these markets if you really care to have an understanding on the subject....or maybe you just prefer ranting on ***** you don't understand. either way, piss off - you make me sick.
  • ratexla, on 10/10/2008, -3/+5"In a late 2006 report, former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern projected that the long-term costs of climate change could exceed 20 percent of gross world product (GWP). By comparison, the near-term costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize climate, which Stern estimates at 1 percent of GWP, would be a bargain."

    -From Plan B 3.0 (Brown) - FREE DOWNLOAD HERE:
    http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB3/Contents.htm
  • Wargasmic, on 10/10/2008, -5/+4Hippies.
  • chopsky, on 10/10/2008, -2/+8Buried for retarded image. CO2 Hazard Area Ahead?
    So essentially, the entire Earth is a hazard area, because there's pretty much CO2 everywhere.
  • govsucks, on 10/10/2008, -3/+4The bailout bill didn't kill them my lords.

    Plunge the dagger of Environmental ***** into their heart a few times and that should make sure they're dead.
    • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2Do you ever read your comments to make sure they make any ***** sense? Who is "they" in this particular instance? And who is speaking? And who is "the lords".
  • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -2/+6Cap and trade is a horrible idea. Why, congress, must you do everything wrong???
    • nevetssav, on 10/10/2008, -2/+3Yeah. It only helped curb acid rain in california when we instituted it in the early 90s, and it's only helped Europe build a stable investment option *and* curb their greenhouse gasses.

      Wosat here would rather you...uh...no, no, he's got nothing.
  • veriix, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2Does it have to do with lupus?
  • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3The libertarians would have us believe that environmentalism is impossible without economic failure. I see the exact opposite. How many jobs will be created during the process of overhauling factories into being more green.. jobs that can't be just shipped overseas? How many companies will be created that specialize in such processes? Sorry guys, I see green economics as the future of America, you can take your early 20th century point of view and go to hell (or maybe some heavily polluted, unregulated and "free" third world nation) for all I care.

    Libertarians love to talk about American innovation and ingenuity, but that talk just shuts down the second environmentalism comes up. It couldn't be that this could actually be GOOD for our economy as businesses plan to transition their operations to meet this regulation and innovation leads to cheaper ways to be green. Then a few generations down the road we'll have green factories across America, and we once again can tell right wingers to go shove it as we have done since the dawn of this country.
    • BrewmasterC, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3Libertarians respect the property rights of others. Pollution is an act of defiling a neighbor's property so it is not to be tolerated. Cap and trade is the biggest energy boondoggle since Enron popularized "trading markets". The big energy producers want a permanent right to pollute, and they even have the audacity to try and make their pollution a monopoly so they scan screw the consumer.

      The only system that will work is a tax on geocarbon imports and domestic geocarbon extraction, along with bringing older coal plants up to code in terms of scrubbing out non-CO2 emissions.
      • ksmcafee, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3Its actually been proved that permit systems (such as cap and trade) are far more cost effective then taxing, while both have the exact same long term effect. and there are actually sections of the CAA that state that any all new plans built since 1970s or something as well as any old plant that makes a "major capital investment" must install a scrubber.

        and keep in mind that we cant get to a state of 0%, we can only get to equilibrium where the cost to society (including health defects, etc) equal the benefits that we get from production of things we need (such as energy). yes, this is unfortunate that the optimal state of things really is saying "hey, this is the best amount to pollute", but its simply the state that things naturally will move towards regardless of our feelings on the matter.
  • marphtwo, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1Finally! We needed this about 100 years ago!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.