Wow! This entire Cap and Trade scheme is a vast plan to control the US economy and rediistribute huge wealth from one segment to another. This level of Socialist planning would make Marx, Lenin, & Stalin beam with pride.
@Omexoplex Lock yourself in a refrigerator for a few hours and see how quickly that harmless stuff we exhale becomes not-so-harmless.
Too much of anything is a bad thing. In a complex system a change in one variable can have drastic effects throughout.
It's not just CO2 either. Factor in deforestation which cancels out any carbon uptake that foliage normally would. Oceans have become more acidic limiting their carbon absorption and melting permafrost releases methane. It's a chain reaction.
T'aint the extra Co2 thats gonna end the fridgey fun in your playful analogy, the lack of oxygen is the culprit there. The problem here is everyone you debate with the issues you raise is probably an environmentalist too, they know already(from school, tele, papers, books, movies, everything). If i was part of a giant capitalist cabal that ruled the universe, i'd put some cash into hijacking the environmentalist movement that threatened my empire, get them screaming about something benign.
@educution Heh, I knew the analogy was going to be nitpicked. Technically it's both - yes there is oxygen deprivation, but as carbon dioxide builds up and is inhaled again it leads to hypercapnia - i.e. carbon dioxide poisoning.
"If i was part of a giant capitalist cabal that ruled the universe"
Are you saying you believe this? It's more likely a cabal of industrialists who don't want to be restricted in their pollution is trying to instill doubt rather than the other way around.
Sure, we are polluting the environ and raping the soil, Those many issues and problems each have their own solution witch must be addressed accordingly...This Blanket solution it not going to do a god damned thing but make people RICH AND YOU KNOW IT
@Omexoplex I don't know why you're so pessimistic about this "blanket" solution - cap and trade has been shown to work ( tinyurl [.] com/amqw64 ) and it uses free market principles to get it done.
In a perfect world - a world where we can pump unlimited amounts of carbon & methane into the atmosphere without consequence - cap & trade would be wasteful, but we cannot / should not wait for the market to decide it is profitable. Will there be costs? Yes, but it will be costlier to do nothing.
As for making some people rich - isn't that the whole idea? If the government promotes and incentivizes green technologies it could indeed lead to a green revolution.
Let's not kid ourselves, it's not like the money is going to go straight into someone's pockets. The incentives will be there to benefit innovators and by extension us and the environment in the long.
Whether Big Oil & Coal want to be part of that green revolution will be up to them. We MUST ween ourselves off of fossil fuels.
Almost a good point....I find it hard to swallow 2.2 trillion a year being spent on our "black" budget alone with nothing to show for it but a black plane and a new quagmire ("war") every few years against peasants in foreign god forsaken lands...Look, what im trying to say here is that its not a "how do we raise fund" issue...the money to "save" the world has always been there...in the wrong hands
The markets have been progessively destroying everything good in the world for the last hundred years, you are a complete lunatic if you think the market will save the planet. This prof chap like many crazy people is very clever, but he's stil batshit crazy.
You think the environment is bad because a government doesn't regulate taking/dumping materials from it. They will distribute things responsibly. Except they don't, well, you just need to make sure you elect principled people right?
So your solution is to always elect good lawmakers who make good laws. Forever. How many good lawmakers you remember in the past 100 years?
So who is crazy here?
Solution? Use on a system where the morality of the individuals doesn't even matter.
The best way is to make it easier for people to sue for damages. And finally institute the loser pays to nix the frivolous law suits.
You can always trust individuals look out for themselves or those close to them. Its the best way of getting those with the clearest perspective on the damage impact to counter those doing it for greed.
I believe it's very possible. Obvious examples are when a factory is belching smog and neighbors develop health problems can sue.
But you wonder if people/companies contribute tiny amounts but together makes a big difference.
In this case there are financial incentives for people to develop technology and new ways of measuring effects. Think of it as a transfer of wealth from lawyers to scientists and inventors.
Well first off, I really doubt there's much real world example of the suing for that sort of thing being successful.
Infact, the only significant changes that come to mind are the national regulation mandates on Sulfur and Mercury. And about the only sort of lawsuits you get are based on non-compliance with those laws.
What's more, carbon disperses itself across the entire world. So it's not such a good analogy to compare it to something regional.
The greatest power has to occur regionally unfortunately. The further removed from the areas effects the worse the understanding and concern for the situation is.
Also its an idea monopoly. Once adopted, even terrible plans will be carried out for years, rather than a constant myriad of ideas and applications, the best of which carried forward
This all assumes the best of intentions and action. Which unfortunately is far from truth. The centers of power have corruptive influences as well.
I thought you were making the point that CO2 could not be managed regionally.
As for successful lawsuits I seem to remember more and more the farther back I think of. Even today some are still won but it's rare. A large part of this is again from no loser pay scenario. Success is more frequent in Canada for example.
The size of the company (and the fact that it is a company) should also influence the maximum penalty for fines.
@educution I agree with you on that. But I don't think to be fair on Boyce he is simply arguing the market will save the planet.
He is providing a thoughtful analysis of the carbon cap bills and how they work. He obviously prefers the Cantwell/Collins bill to Waxman/Markey (and given the choice that seems sensible).
But even if Cantwell/Collins is designed to prevent Wall St getting dirty hands on carbon trading I'm pretty sure they can find indirect ways of doing it - its delaying things only
@educution So if markets destroy everything, what about what the interviewee mentioned about cap and trade. You know, the trade part that requires a market.
@Xenthoid in my estimates cap and trade will only serve the interests of megacorporations. they can handle the hit, especially if they have divested capital in green and not-so green schemes, which many have (bp, chevron). Smaller businesses will fail, only to be bought up by the corporations extra pocket money from hiked up food and energy prices. Meanwhiles pollution continues, nuclear gets out of jail free, and there is no incentive for preservation of old forest (non-treefarm).
@educution "in my estimates cap and trade will only serve the interests of megacorporations." Couldn't have agreed more. This also means that us normal people will get the short end of the stick,
Once the bills are passed, the lobbyist will come in deregulate everything (Cantwell bill - hahahaha) on behalf of Goldman and the the boys who will create a speculative bubble in carbon derrivatives sucking the money out of the public utility bills and then crash the market in a spectacular fashion laying waste to every public utility which then will get bailed out by more tax payer money with wall street ending up in ownership of everything. Paul Jay go f yourself.
Wow! This entire Cap and Trade scheme is a vast plan to control the US economy and rediistribute huge wealth from one segment to another. This level of Socialist planning would make Marx, Lenin, & Stalin beam with pride.
bboucharde 2 years ago
I really hope I can see this stuff on TV someday :)
keep it up TRNN
sl2mmer 2 years ago
It shouldn't have pushed it off the table and as it did we're trying to put it right back on...
You think every time the money's bad (every 10 years or so) we should stop doing whatever we're doing to take care of the money first?
I'm sure your answer is YES and that's just sad...
sinekonata 2 years ago
Ok this actually looks good. Major advantage is that it looks like a feasible bill...
I just hope that the prices will get higher and higher through time till it's cheaper to buy an electric car than a fuel one.
sinekonata 2 years ago
The casino nanny state is learning to march lock step.
OsamaBinForgotten2 2 years ago
Best interview in a while
panstriato2 2 years ago
excellent journalism.. keep them coming.
johnnyboy41 2 years ago 5
Carbon dioxide right? The stuff we exhale? The stuff that vegetation NEEDS to live and grow? THIS IS INSANITY OR TRICKERY
Omexoplex 2 years ago
@Omexoplex Lock yourself in a refrigerator for a few hours and see how quickly that harmless stuff we exhale becomes not-so-harmless.
Too much of anything is a bad thing. In a complex system a change in one variable can have drastic effects throughout.
It's not just CO2 either. Factor in deforestation which cancels out any carbon uptake that foliage normally would. Oceans have become more acidic limiting their carbon absorption and melting permafrost releases methane. It's a chain reaction.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
T'aint the extra Co2 thats gonna end the fridgey fun in your playful analogy, the lack of oxygen is the culprit there. The problem here is everyone you debate with the issues you raise is probably an environmentalist too, they know already(from school, tele, papers, books, movies, everything). If i was part of a giant capitalist cabal that ruled the universe, i'd put some cash into hijacking the environmentalist movement that threatened my empire, get them screaming about something benign.
educution 2 years ago 2
@educution Heh, I knew the analogy was going to be nitpicked. Technically it's both - yes there is oxygen deprivation, but as carbon dioxide builds up and is inhaled again it leads to hypercapnia - i.e. carbon dioxide poisoning.
"If i was part of a giant capitalist cabal that ruled the universe"
Are you saying you believe this? It's more likely a cabal of industrialists who don't want to be restricted in their pollution is trying to instill doubt rather than the other way around.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
Sure, we are polluting the environ and raping the soil, Those many issues and problems each have their own solution witch must be addressed accordingly...This Blanket solution it not going to do a god damned thing but make people RICH AND YOU KNOW IT
Omexoplex 2 years ago 2
@Omexoplex I don't know why you're so pessimistic about this "blanket" solution - cap and trade has been shown to work ( tinyurl [.] com/amqw64 ) and it uses free market principles to get it done.
In a perfect world - a world where we can pump unlimited amounts of carbon & methane into the atmosphere without consequence - cap & trade would be wasteful, but we cannot / should not wait for the market to decide it is profitable. Will there be costs? Yes, but it will be costlier to do nothing.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
As for making some people rich - isn't that the whole idea? If the government promotes and incentivizes green technologies it could indeed lead to a green revolution.
Let's not kid ourselves, it's not like the money is going to go straight into someone's pockets. The incentives will be there to benefit innovators and by extension us and the environment in the long.
Whether Big Oil & Coal want to be part of that green revolution will be up to them. We MUST ween ourselves off of fossil fuels.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
@Omexoplex
Well then, here's a simple thought experiment.
Let's say we figured out a giant meteor was going to hit the earth in 50 years.
And we could do something about it, however it would be rather expensive.
How would you propose financing the solution to deal with it?
greyflcn 2 years ago
Almost a good point....I find it hard to swallow 2.2 trillion a year being spent on our "black" budget alone with nothing to show for it but a black plane and a new quagmire ("war") every few years against peasants in foreign god forsaken lands...Look, what im trying to say here is that its not a "how do we raise fund" issue...the money to "save" the world has always been there...in the wrong hands
Omexoplex 2 years ago
The markets have been progessively destroying everything good in the world for the last hundred years, you are a complete lunatic if you think the market will save the planet. This prof chap like many crazy people is very clever, but he's stil batshit crazy.
educution 2 years ago 2
You think the environment is bad because a government doesn't regulate taking/dumping materials from it. They will distribute things responsibly. Except they don't, well, you just need to make sure you elect principled people right?
So your solution is to always elect good lawmakers who make good laws. Forever. How many good lawmakers you remember in the past 100 years?
So who is crazy here?
Solution? Use on a system where the morality of the individuals doesn't even matter.
sirellyn 2 years ago
@sirellyn
Which sounds great.
greyfalcon. net/ paul.png
greyfalcon. net/ milton
However in practice, an invisible telepathic zombie is more realistic to people like this
Than whether or not the atmosphere is increasingly blocking infrared radiation within a specific spectrum associated with CO2 and CH4.
greyfalcon. net/ greenhouse
That said, the market is a price setting mechanism.
If there's no cost or limitation with a creating a liability, then how is the market supposed to handle it?
greyflcn 2 years ago
The best way is to make it easier for people to sue for damages. And finally institute the loser pays to nix the frivolous law suits.
You can always trust individuals look out for themselves or those close to them. Its the best way of getting those with the clearest perspective on the damage impact to counter those doing it for greed.
sirellyn 2 years ago
@sirellyn
So your answer is strict property rights on the atmosphere?
That's not possible.
greyflcn 2 years ago
I believe it's very possible. Obvious examples are when a factory is belching smog and neighbors develop health problems can sue.
But you wonder if people/companies contribute tiny amounts but together makes a big difference.
In this case there are financial incentives for people to develop technology and new ways of measuring effects. Think of it as a transfer of wealth from lawyers to scientists and inventors.
sirellyn 2 years ago
@sirellyn
Well first off, I really doubt there's much real world example of the suing for that sort of thing being successful.
Infact, the only significant changes that come to mind are the national regulation mandates on Sulfur and Mercury. And about the only sort of lawsuits you get are based on non-compliance with those laws.
What's more, carbon disperses itself across the entire world. So it's not such a good analogy to compare it to something regional.
greyflcn 2 years ago
The greatest power has to occur regionally unfortunately. The further removed from the areas effects the worse the understanding and concern for the situation is.
Also its an idea monopoly. Once adopted, even terrible plans will be carried out for years, rather than a constant myriad of ideas and applications, the best of which carried forward
This all assumes the best of intentions and action. Which unfortunately is far from truth. The centers of power have corruptive influences as well.
sirellyn 2 years ago
@sirellyn
Are you sure we're still talking about the same thing?
Since that reply doesn't seem to make any sense.
greyflcn 2 years ago
I thought you were making the point that CO2 could not be managed regionally.
As for successful lawsuits I seem to remember more and more the farther back I think of. Even today some are still won but it's rare. A large part of this is again from no loser pay scenario. Success is more frequent in Canada for example.
The size of the company (and the fact that it is a company) should also influence the maximum penalty for fines.
sirellyn 2 years ago
@educution I agree with you on that. But I don't think to be fair on Boyce he is simply arguing the market will save the planet.
He is providing a thoughtful analysis of the carbon cap bills and how they work. He obviously prefers the Cantwell/Collins bill to Waxman/Markey (and given the choice that seems sensible).
But even if Cantwell/Collins is designed to prevent Wall St getting dirty hands on carbon trading I'm pretty sure they can find indirect ways of doing it - its delaying things only
mutattu 2 years ago
@educution So if markets destroy everything, what about what the interviewee mentioned about cap and trade. You know, the trade part that requires a market.
Xenthoid 3 months ago
@Xenthoid in my estimates cap and trade will only serve the interests of megacorporations. they can handle the hit, especially if they have divested capital in green and not-so green schemes, which many have (bp, chevron). Smaller businesses will fail, only to be bought up by the corporations extra pocket money from hiked up food and energy prices. Meanwhiles pollution continues, nuclear gets out of jail free, and there is no incentive for preservation of old forest (non-treefarm).
educution 3 months ago
@educution "in my estimates cap and trade will only serve the interests of megacorporations." Couldn't have agreed more. This also means that us normal people will get the short end of the stick,
Xenthoid 2 months ago
Once the bills are passed, the lobbyist will come in deregulate everything (Cantwell bill - hahahaha) on behalf of Goldman and the the boys who will create a speculative bubble in carbon derrivatives sucking the money out of the public utility bills and then crash the market in a spectacular fashion laying waste to every public utility which then will get bailed out by more tax payer money with wall street ending up in ownership of everything. Paul Jay go f yourself.
jaba987 2 years ago
@jaba987
Hence why it's probably a good idea not to have offsets at all.
greyflcn 2 years ago
so who get the money? let me guess? the banks? our old pals Goldman Sachs?
jaba987 2 years ago
Think Government Is Corrupt? You May Face 10 Years In Jail
cazyblood3 2 years ago