The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

A lot of people aren't clear what cap and trade is. In a nut shell, governments set pollution limits for manufacturers. Now at this point I expect Democrats to come in with government guns and shut down anyone who exceeds them or at least just levy crippling fines. But instead they have created a pollution marketplace. Companies who do not use their allotment can actually sell them to those who exceed them.

So with the competitive marketplace, all companies are incented to invest in technology and develop processes that reduce pollution. If they are above their allotment, they reduce the cost of buying credits. If they are at or below their allotment, they are incented by being able to generate and sell more credits.

Government simply creates and monitors the marketplace. Private companies with market forces actually reduce pollution on their own. I am amazed the Democrats would actually support this. Their style is to dictate to companies, not create competitive markets which is exactly what Cap and Trade is. This could actually work.

That's insane, but true. Doesn't that defeat the intent? Sell unused pollution allowance...this is why I stay away from politics and gov't policy.

VetSkinsFan wrote:That's insane, but true. Doesn't that defeat the intent? Sell unused pollution allowance...

Well, remember you have to look at both sides of the equation. We want all companies to reduce pollution. Cap and Trade achieves that by:

high polluters - reduce pollution so they need to buy fewer credits
low polluters - reduce pollution so they can sell credits.

If you just cap and fine polluters, then you may address them but this way BOTH have incentive to reduce pollution. And even better it can be phased in. What we can do is set a total pollution limit that say is achievable in two years. In two years we reduce the limit again to a level that is achievable in two more years. We can keep doing that until we reach desired end rates of pollution.

VetSkinsFan wrote:this is why I stay away from politics and gov't policy.

Too bad, but if you take it too seriously to enjoy the discussion I suppose that's a good thing.

This is TOOOOOO funny.

Cap & Trade ... another ponzi scheme designed to bilk the sheeple out of Billions in additional taxes, and create another "market" to be exploited by select corporations.

Got to hand it to them ... selling snake oil on a global scale is quite an impressive scheme.

Here's how it works. A company is created .. "The Green Zone" (TGZ) who buys and sells carbon credits to and from other companies around the world. The governments of the world set arbitrary figures on CO2 emissions. Company A that exceeds those limits can buy carbon offset credits from Company B that doesn't. Company B makes a couple of bucks, while company A still pumps out the pollution just as before. Company A then raises the prices of their products to pay for the carbon offset credits, and the consumer pays for the profit that TGZ company makes for doing absolutely nothing.

Meanwhile, company A still pumps out just as much pollution as it ever did (meaning no change in the levels of pollution) while the average Joe pays more for everything.

Now with the system firmly in place, individual carbon limits will be issued to everyone ... the wealthy can buy their offset credits and keep their air conditioning set at 65 or their heat to 80, while the rest will either freeze or sweat.

BRILLIANT.

And they say you can't fool all of the people all of the time ....

RayNAustin wrote:This is TOOOOOO funny.

Cap & Trade ... another ponzi scheme

You don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, do you Ray? What you described isn't one. Ponzi doesn't mean "bad" it actually has a specific meaning. I realize to liberals any bad word can be applied to anything they don't like, but we're not all liberals so you may want to learn what words actually mean if you're going to use them outside liberal arenas.

RayNAustin wrote:Here's how it works. A company is created .. "The Green Zone" (TGZ) who buys and sells carbon credits to and from other companies around the world. The governments of the world set arbitrary figures on CO2 emissions. Company A that exceeds those limits can buy carbon offset credits from Company B that doesn't. Company B makes a couple of bucks, while company A still pumps out the pollution just as before. Company A then raises the prices of their products to pay for the carbon offset credits, and the consumer pays for the profit that TGZ company makes for doing absolutely nothing.

Meanwhile, company A still pumps out just as much pollution as it ever did (meaning no change in the levels of pollution) while the average Joe pays more for everything.

Now with the system firmly in place, individual carbon limits will be issued to everyone ... the wealthy can buy their offset credits and keep their air conditioning set at 65 or their heat to 80, while the rest will either freeze or sweat.

BRILLIANT.

And they say you can't fool all of the people all of the time ....

That would depend on that the price of carbon emission units are. You neglected that in your analysis. Why do you suppose that could be important, Ray?

Actually cap and trade has proved to be a really effective way of reducing emissions. One very important part of the process you left out, Kazoo, is that the cap limits get ratcheted down over time.

Deadskins wrote:Actually cap and trade has proved to be a really effective way of reducing emissions.

Yes, California is cited as the model program.

Deadskins wrote:One very important part of the process you left out, Kazoo, is that the cap limits get ratcheted down over time.

Did I?

Kaz wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:That's insane, but true. Doesn't that defeat the intent? Sell unused pollution allowance...

Well, remember you have to look at both sides of the equation. We want all companies to reduce pollution. Cap and Trade achieves that by:

high polluters - reduce pollution so they need to buy fewer credits
low polluters - reduce pollution so they can sell credits.

If you just cap and fine polluters, then you may address them but this way BOTH have incentive to reduce pollution. And even better it can be phased in. What we can do is set a total pollution limit that say is achievable in two years. In two years we reduce the limit again to a level that is achievable in two more years. We can keep doing that until we reach desired end rates of pollution.

RayNAustin wrote:Company B makes a couple of bucks, while company A still pumps out the pollution just as before. Company A then raises the prices of their products to pay for the carbon offset credits, and the consumer pays for the profit that TGZ company makes for doing absolutely nothing

One more question, Ray. Let's say you're right on this. I produce and sell turnip juice makers and I charge $5. Now cap and trade comes and it's going to cost me another buck to make them to pay for my above the cap pollution. Being your evil capitalist stereotype I get my 350 pound body off my butt, twist my handlebar mustache, laugh my cackling, evil laugh and just raise prices a buck. The consumer now just pays the extra buck for every turnip juice maker I sell.

Here's the problem. According to your scenario I can just raise my prices a buck because I feel like it. Why not raise my prices to $6 now and keep the profit myself then if they do cap I'll use the money for cap and trade. Or better yet raise prices $2 when cap and trade comes and spend a buck on cap and trade and make another buck. Why don't I just raise my price to $50 bucks? According to you consumers have no choice but to pay it. So why don't I do that?

Here's a totally unrelated follow up question. Do you know what "supply" and "demand" are?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Actually cap and trade has proved to be a really effective way of reducing emissions.

Yes, California is cited as the model program.

Isn't California in a financial Apocalypse right now?

Would you follow your broke Uncle's advice only 'cause he put some solar panels on his roof to "go green", only to find out the bank is about to foreclose on his house?

I understand Cap and Tax is not to blame for the financial woes in CA (at least not directly, to my knowledge), but to copy what CA has done, IMO, doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for Cap and Tax.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:This is TOOOOOO funny.

Cap & Trade ... another ponzi scheme

You don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, do you Ray? What you described isn't one. Ponzi doesn't mean "bad" it actually has a specific meaning. I realize to liberals any bad word can be applied to anything they don't like, but we're not all liberals so you may want to learn what words actually mean if you're going to use them outside liberal arenas.

Instead of pounding on Ray for his semantics, could you provide an explanation as to why Cap and Tax is NOT a scam, as Ray points out.

As of my typing of this post, you have not addressed his argument directly.

Can you please explain why, IYO, the little guy WON'T end up being the victim, like those of a Ponzi scheme?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Company B makes a couple of bucks, while company A still pumps out the pollution just as before. Company A then raises the prices of their products to pay for the carbon offset credits, and the consumer pays for the profit that TGZ company makes for doing absolutely nothing

One more question, Ray. Let's say you're right on this. I produce and sell turnip juice makers and I charge $5. Now cap and trade comes and it's going to cost me another buck to make them to pay for my above the cap pollution. Being your evil capitalist stereotype I get my 350 pound body off my butt, twist my handlebar mustache, laugh my cackling, evil laugh and just raise prices a buck. The consumer now just pays the extra buck for every turnip juice maker I sell.

Here's the problem. According to your scenario I can just raise my prices a buck because I feel like it. Why not raise my prices to $6 now and keep the profit myself then if they do cap I'll use the money for cap and trade. Or better yet raise prices $2 when cap and trade comes and spend a buck on cap and trade and make another buck. Why don't I just raise my price to $50 bucks? According to you consumers have no choice but to pay it. So why don't I do that?

Here's a totally unrelated follow up question. Do you know what "supply" and "demand" are?

When it comes to this scenario, the supply is controlled. The demand is unending since you're talking about energy that everyone needs to survive.

This is not about 40 inch LCD's that people can choose not to purchase. And if you had HALF a brain, this would be obvious to you.

I swear, I think my dog could whip you in a chess game.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Here's the problem. According to your scenario I can just raise my prices a buck because I feel like it. Why not raise my prices to $6 now and keep the profit myself then if they do cap I'll use the money for cap and trade. Or better yet raise prices $2 when cap and trade comes and spend a buck on cap and trade and make another buck. Why don't I just raise my price to $50 bucks? According to you consumers have no choice but to pay it. So why don't I do that

You will. And that's the scheme, oh brilliant one. You will. People can't survive without energy any more than they can without food. So they'll have to pay or suffer the loss. And if you are their sole source for what they need, you'll have a captive audience.

It's really elementary. I'm surprised you're so foolish.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:This is TOOOOOO funny.

Cap & Trade ... another ponzi scheme

You don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, do you Ray? What you described isn't one. Ponzi doesn't mean "bad" it actually has a specific meaning. I realize to liberals any bad word can be applied to anything they don't like, but we're not all liberals so you may want to learn what words actually mean if you're going to use them outside liberal arenas.

Instead of pounding on Ray for his semantics, could you provide an explanation as to why Cap and Tax is NOT a scam, as Ray points out.

As of my typing of this post, you have not addressed his argument directly.

Can you please explain why, IYO, the little guy WON'T end up being the victim, like those of a Ponzi scheme?

Thank you. He can't. Because the people will get screwed by this. And anyone with half a brain can see through this nonsense like a piece of clean glass.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:This is TOOOOOO funny.

Cap & Trade ... another ponzi scheme

You don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, do you Ray? What you described isn't one. Ponzi doesn't mean "bad" it actually has a specific meaning. I realize to liberals any bad word can be applied to anything they don't like, but we're not all liberals so you may want to learn what words actually mean if you're going to use them outside liberal arenas.

Look the word up. It's very applicable. It's fraud in which investors invest in a non existent (totally bogus) enterprise. The first investors ( the ponzi schemers) reap the benefits of the successive investors (the captive audience relying on honest government).

This quite appropriately describes cap & trade ... or as Redeemedskin so accurately labeled "Cap & Tax".

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Actually cap and trade has proved to be a really effective way of reducing emissions.

Yes, California is cited as the model program.

Deadskins wrote:One very important part of the process you left out, Kazoo, is that the cap limits get ratcheted down over time.

Did I?

Kaz wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:That's insane, but true. Doesn't that defeat the intent? Sell unused pollution allowance...

Well, remember you have to look at both sides of the equation. We want all companies to reduce pollution. Cap and Trade achieves that by:

high polluters - reduce pollution so they need to buy fewer credits
low polluters - reduce pollution so they can sell credits.

If you just cap and fine polluters, then you may address them but this way BOTH have incentive to reduce pollution. And even better it can be phased in. What we can do is set a total pollution limit that say is achievable in two years. In two years we reduce the limit again to a level that is achievable in two more years. We can keep doing that until we reach desired end rates of pollution.

I didn't read past the initial post, when I responded.

RayNAustin wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:This is TOOOOOO funny.

Cap & Trade ... another ponzi scheme

You don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, do you Ray? What you described isn't one. Ponzi doesn't mean "bad" it actually has a specific meaning. I realize to liberals any bad word can be applied to anything they don't like, but we're not all liberals so you may want to learn what words actually mean if you're going to use them outside liberal arenas.

Instead of pounding on Ray for his semantics, could you provide an explanation as to why Cap and Tax is NOT a scam, as Ray points out.

As of my typing of this post, you have not addressed his argument directly.

Can you please explain why, IYO, the little guy WON'T end up being the victim, like those of a Ponzi scheme?

Thank you. He can't. Because the people will get screwed by this. And anyone with half a brain can see through this nonsense like a piece of clean glass.

While the people may pay the ultimate cost for the program, they are getting a cleaner environment as a result, so they are not getting totally screwed, and are getting some return for their investment.

Isnn't the selling of credits just the capitalist angle in an otherwise green regulation? Why not just set an individual, non-trasnferrable cap that scales down and call it a day.

There should be no reward (selling credits) for low pollutions. You're giving too much wiggle room in the industrial sector. Set the cap, enforce strict and severe repercussions if they do not comply.

With the current system, it's giving every child (company) the ability to NOT comply using the almighty dollar. The whole precedence is wrong to me. You give two choices: you either comply or you pay the penalty to not comply, and then comply.

And I realize that this is a naive political stance, but that's just how I see it.

VetSkinsFan wrote:Isnn't the selling of credits just the capitalist angle in an otherwise green regulation? Why not just set an individual, non-trasnferrable cap that scales down and call it a day.

There should be no reward (selling credits) for low pollutions. You're giving too much wiggle room in the industrial sector. Set the cap, enforce strict and severe repercussions if they do not comply.

With the current system, it's giving every child (company) the ability to NOT comply using the almighty dollar. The whole precedence is wrong to me. You give two choices: you either comply or you pay the penalty to not comply, and then comply.

And I realize that this is a naive political stance, but that's just how I see it.

That is the way it has been done ever since regulations began. That system didn't work because corporations just used their money to fight the regulations while continuing to pollute. This sets up a market system where companies are rewarded for lowering their emmissions. Corporations would much rather do things as the result of market pressures on their bottom line, than be forced into action by mandates. Even though the objective is the same, cap and trade works where simply capping does not, because of human nature.

Deadskins wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Isnn't the selling of credits just the capitalist angle in an otherwise green regulation? Why not just set an individual, non-trasnferrable cap that scales down and call it a day.

There should be no reward (selling credits) for low pollutions. You're giving too much wiggle room in the industrial sector. Set the cap, enforce strict and severe repercussions if they do not comply.

With the current system, it's giving every child (company) the ability to NOT comply using the almighty dollar. The whole precedence is wrong to me. You give two choices: you either comply or you pay the penalty to not comply, and then comply.

And I realize that this is a naive political stance, but that's just how I see it.

That is the way it has been done ever since regulations began. That system didn't work because corporations just used their money to fight the regulations while continuing to pollute. This sets up a market system where companies are rewarded for lowering their emmissions. Corporations would much rather do things as the result of market pressures on their bottom line, than be forced into action by mandates. Even though the objective is the same, cap and trade works where simply capping does not, because of human nature.

I see every situation just as I see raising my child. The only way my child can talk back or argue is if I give him the room to do so. This ecenario you described falls in to thsi category. The military structure is more to my liking. You comply, and then if you want to argue how it WAS wrong, then you do so after the task is completed.

Yes, I realize all too well that the guys with the power have to be on the straight and narrow, but IMO it's stupid to take the same amount of effort to argue not to change (for the better in the big picture) as it would take just to change. People who do this need to be neutered so they can't spread their stupidity.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Isnn't the selling of credits just the capitalist angle in an otherwise green regulation? Why not just set an individual, non-trasnferrable cap that scales down and call it a day.

There should be no reward (selling credits) for low pollutions. You're giving too much wiggle room in the industrial sector. Set the cap, enforce strict and severe repercussions if they do not comply.

With the current system, it's giving every child (company) the ability to NOT comply using the almighty dollar. The whole precedence is wrong to me. You give two choices: you either comply or you pay the penalty to not comply, and then comply.

And I realize that this is a naive political stance, but that's just how I see it.

That is the way it has been done ever since regulations began. That system didn't work because corporations just used their money to fight the regulations while continuing to pollute. This sets up a market system where companies are rewarded for lowering their emmissions. Corporations would much rather do things as the result of market pressures on their bottom line, than be forced into action by mandates. Even though the objective is the same, cap and trade works where simply capping does not, because of human nature.

I see every situation just as I see raising my child. The only way my child can talk back or argue is if I give him the room to do so. This ecenario you described falls in to thsi category. The military structure is more to my liking. You comply, and then if you want to argue how it WAS wrong, then you do so after the task is completed.

Yes, I realize all too well that the guys with the power have to be on the straight and narrow, but IMO it's stupid to take the same amount of effort to argue not to change (for the better in the big picture) as it would take just to change. People who do this need to be neutered so they can't spread their stupidity.

Politicians on the straight and narrow?

Sorry, Kaz. No matter what the state mandate, if it is a state mandate, it cannot create "market forces." You can't polish a turd.

Sorry, I know I posted a couple things. Lots of good debate and I have a bunch of points to address here. But I won't have that much time until later in the week. My apologies. Anyway, tell me how stupid I am and I'll get to it.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Sorry, I know I posted a couple things. Lots of good debate and I have a bunch of points to address here. But I won't have that much time until later in the week. My apologies. Anyway, tell me how stupid I am and I'll get to it.

Kaz, you're stupid!!!

Deadskins wrote:That is the way it has been done ever since regulations began. That system didn't work because corporations just used their money to fight the regulations while continuing to pollute. This sets up a market system where companies are rewarded for lowering their emmissions. Corporations would much rather do things as the result of market pressures on their bottom line, than be forced into action by mandates. Even though the objective is the same, cap and trade works where simply capping does not, because of human nature.

Your second sentence above should have ben your first clue, but you completely missed your own excellent point unfortunately.

Regulations have always been bypassed by well connected corporations. And those who find themselves being impacted by regulations have always achieved their goals of de-regulation through lobbying (read: bribe) congress. Take one look at the financial crisis for how de-regulation made possible the wholesale looting of the financial sector as a prime example. Each and every time industry has found regulations to be too restrictive, they simply pay off congress to ease those restrictions. The congress then uses downturns in the economy to justify de-regulation (the free market argument) under the guise of boosting economic growth. It's an old game.

The new game is Cap & Trade. This just bypasses the need for pretense, and allows direct, open pay outs which eliminate regulations altogether for those that can afford to. The wealthy mega corporations (which also happen to be the largest polluters) can pay to pollute, while smaller competing firms will fold under the financial pressures of those regulations.

Given the current state of the economy, Cap & Trade is the final nail in the coffin. The overall effect may cut emissions ... but at the expense of our way of life. Third world, underdeveloped countries don't pollute as much as thriving industrialized countries do, and that is the point here. So, if that's how you want to live, all you Cap & Trade supporters should just go move to Mexico and live in shacks with unfit water to drink and irrigate your crops with brown water, because that is what you are championing.

What's even sadder is that it's totally unnecessary. First, this scheme will do nothing to cut emissions, and secondly, CO2 emissions are not what's damaging the environment in the first place. It's a totally false argument.

Pollution is certainly a problem .. but the entire CO2 argument doesn't address any part of it. And the very title of this thread is a little outdated, by the way. The new term is no longer Global Warming ... it's "Climate Change" . And you want to know why the change? Because the planet is actually cooling, and has been for over a decade. The Global Warming scammers realize that even the clueless, fluoride drinking, mercury damaged, apathetic mental midgets in this country are receiving the word that the planet is no longer warming ... so they now say that CO2 is responsible for "Climate Change" which conveniently covers both warming and cooling. And guess what? You're buying it !! A totally nonsensical and illogical concept that one factor (CO2) can cause both warming and cooling. It's like saying that paying your bills late every month will damage your credit, but paying them on time will too LOL. Totally counter intuitive, but convenient for the scammers if they can convince the gullible to accept such absurdity. And apparently they can, at least for some.

Here's the deal ... forget everything else in this post ... the argument about Cap & Trade ... whether it will work or not. The basis for Cap & Trade is the single issue that renders the entire argument moot.

CO2 emissions do not cause global warming or cooling. PERIOD. It's a scientific fact that is provable by 10,000 years of climate history unlocked in core ice samples collected that show the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet long before there were any SUV's ... or industrial activity. The fact is that there have been periods in history where the global temperature was much warmer than it is today, and unless someone can show us a Chevy Suburban frozen in a 5,000 year old block of ice next to a wooly Mammoth, I don't think driving SUV's caused it. The driving force behind this cyclic warming and cooling is, and has always been solar activity. Absolutely nothing man does causes climate change, therefore nothing man can do to change it. It's a SCAM, based on JUNK pseudoscience with no foundation in reality.

What's most astonishing is that his Holiness the Oracle, Al Gore's own data shows that increases in C02 levels follow AFTER a warming period, not before ... so the foundation of the argument is demonstrably false. I know this is unacceptable to the members of the Church of Global Warming, but is true nevertheless. What's more ... that increase in C02 levels occur HUNDREDS of YEARS after a warming period. Today's CO2 levels are a result of an extended warming period after the last mini ice age.

To consider CO2 a pollutant is contrary to the basic foundation of biology, and is akin to considering oxygen a pollutant, since life on this planet couldn't survive without both.

This is how the biologic cycle works .... the Sun warms the planet, which encourages plant life to prosper and growing seasons and regions expand. This gives mammals more abundant food sources, which encourage increases in mammal populations. Mammals breath the oxygen produced by the plant life, while the plant life breaths the CO2 expelled by the mammals.

By far, the largest sources of CO2 coming from living creatures comes from the oceans (70% of the mass of the planet) ... as the solar activity warms the planet, surface sea vegetation prospers, which provides expanded growth in sea life. All of this prospering life around the globe shows up in increased C02 levels hundred's of years later.

Now, DON'T AVOID THE POINT. You Global Warming cultists are hereby challenged to refute this basic point that C02 levels don't precede global warming, but in fact come after a warming period.

This is scientific fact that defeats the entire CO2 argument. Of course, the IPCC (the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) claims that there is universal agreement among scientists of anthropogenic climate change ... until you go down their list of scientists and find many who refute that out right, and have sued in court to have their names removed from this fabricated report by the IPCC.

Now, what?