Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Free speech and cap 'n trade troubles

  1. Nov 18, 2009 #1
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/epa-employees-silenced-criticizing-cap-trade/

    http://video.foxnews.com/11685042/gag-order/?category_id=c985e69916535a2170b2b18ab0ab7eb60401f9bb.

    There must be strong feelings on both sides of the dispute or?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 18, 2009 #2

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Isn't this like the Nasa employees that were 'silenced' for mentioning evolution or global warming?

    Your employment contract (especially with a federal agency) says you can't make public pronouncements about your work without clearing them with the press office.
    So to drum up some publicity you claim to have been silenced by The Man.
     
  4. Nov 18, 2009 #3
    Let's not forget Humana and the CMS/health care debate.
     
  5. Nov 18, 2009 #4

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    My personal feeling is that "cap 'n trade" is not much more than a scam (basically a new financial game) to make a few people rich at the expense of the many with little realization of the goal of reducing emissions.

    Various utilities are already looking at technologies to reduce or eliminate emissions. They should be rewarded.

    We don't need to be giving money to financial middlemen who do nothing except extract a fee while adding to overhead.
     
  6. Nov 18, 2009 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Cap and trade is a scam, and the loopholes will be exploited to let the dirtiest polluters stay on-line and avoid making upgrades. Already we have seen that major rebuilds in the power industry have been characterized as "routine maintenance" to avoid triggering tighter emissions standards applicable to new equipment. There is no reason to believe that operators of coal-fired power plants will suddenly see the light and start cleaning up their plants.

    Thanks to our location down-wind of the mid-west plants, Maine has acidified lakes and ponds, mercury bio-accumulating in our fish and their predators, cadmium and other metals accumulating in the livers of deer and moose, etc. It is high time to start enforcing the pollution standards that we already have, and start tightening them on a reasonable time-line. Rebuilding power-plants and/or fitting them with stack-scrubbers, etc, would create jobs AND give us a cleaner environment. Cap and trade will do neither. It's just a shell-game to keep the bad actors sheltered from their actions. The air and water belong to all of us, yet they are being fouled with the connivance of the power companies, coal companies, their lobbyists, and the Congressional members who can be bought with campaign contributions. Unfortunately, bribery in DC is not illegal - such institutional corruption is regarded as business as usual.
     
  7. Nov 18, 2009 #6
    It's good to see we have a consensus on both sides of the politcal spectrum on this issue here in the PF.
     
  8. Nov 18, 2009 #7
    I could not possibly agree more.
     
  9. Nov 18, 2009 #8

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wow...you mean we finally found our *one* issue? Aaaahhh....let's have a group hug and sing Kumbaya...:tongue2:!
     
  10. Nov 18, 2009 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Dibs on the Smores!!!
     
  11. Nov 18, 2009 #10

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Smores? Hmmmm...turbo, I think we might need something a bit stronger to get drankin, WhoWee, and I bet Russ, to join our anti-cap-and-trade love-in, hahaha.....
     
  12. Nov 18, 2009 #11

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You may be right, basil. It's hard to negotiate with folks that are intent on saying NO as long as they are out of power, though. :frown:
     
  13. Nov 18, 2009 #12
    NO to smores...
     
  14. Nov 19, 2009 #13
    A picture is worth a thousand words:
    MG_0216x.jpg
     
  15. Nov 19, 2009 #14
    WhoWee is in for the hug.

    Cap and trade is just a scam and doesn't fix anything. I'm also in favor of clean air, water, and soil. We have a VERY high incidence of cancer in my area (family not excluded).

    At the same time, I'm not in favor of chasing our manufacturing base offshore.
     
  16. Nov 19, 2009 #15

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The point is that power-plants cannot be out-sourced. Components could be built elsewhere, but it should be within the capabilities of our regulators to give preferential treatment to companies that source their upgrade equipment, materials, etc from domestic sources. Greening our power-generation facilities should be an engine driving new American jobs. Certainly, there are environmental and health benefits to be gained, and if we can get some heavy industry and construction jobs restored in the process, the benefits will extend to increasing wages, improved state, local, and federal tax revenues, and reduced outlays for unemployment insurance and monetary assistance programs.

    US companies have been exporting jobs off-shore, to the detriment of the domestic economy. It is time to look at tax breaks, etc, that these companies enjoy, and reduce or eliminate them if they continue to shift production overseas. We cannot possibly maintain a healthy economy without a robust manufacturing sector. This is a matter of our national security and deserves the attention of our elected representatives in DC.
     
  17. Nov 19, 2009 #16

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    According to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the US lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs during the last decade.

    The manufacturing was moved to cheaper labor markets overseas. That also means that the technology moves overseas as well. This also coincides with an increase in the trade deficit. The US imports much more manufactured goods than it exports.

    There is a problem that the rest of the world can pretty much manufacture everything that the US can, so there is no need to buy from the US, with the possible exception of weapons. I don't think however that the US trade balance should be based on arming the rest of the world.

    If one took replaced all the imported oil with domestic energy, the US would still have a trade deficit. Of course, that could be reversed if the US exported energy in the form of liquified natural gas.
     
  18. Nov 20, 2009 #17
    On the one hand, I agree to some extent, on the other hand, a private company I think should have every right to shift production to wherever will allow it to make the largest profit. If companies are given a tax break by keeping production within the U.S., but that tax break is revoked if they move production outside, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I would say we could maybe keep certain businesses here by cutting our corporate tax rate, it is one of the highest in the world.

    As for manufacturing, the U.S. still manufactures more than any other nation in the world, it's just that the manufacturing has become more automated, so less human workers are needed.
     
  19. Nov 20, 2009 #18

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    On paper perhaps. There are so many loop-holes and give-aways written into our tax codes that some huge corporations pay very little in taxes. "Paper" losses can often be carried into the future and be applied to more profitable years to offset profits. There are lots of accounting tricks that can be used to reduce taxes. Before we reduce the corporate tax rate, it would be advisable to start closing loopholes, lest we the taxpayers end up "refunding" money to corporations that have actually paid little or nothing in.
     
  20. Nov 20, 2009 #19
    I'm all for closing loopholes and just cut the corporate rate, but is that really politically feasible (getting the loopholes closed)?

    I would think that even with loopholes, it still may cost less for a company to simply have a lower corporate rate because we have seen certain companies re-locate overseas to places like Switzerland that have a much lower corporate tax rate. It probably costs more money to exploit all the loopholes as opposed to just pay a lower rate from the get-go.
     
  21. Nov 20, 2009 #20

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The US could save a whole bunch of money, improve revenues, and reduce waste and overhead by simplifying the tax code for everybody. Individuals, small business, corporations, etc. Who is going to scream the loudest if this happens? Corporations. They are the only entities with enough money and power to get beneficial loop-holes written into the tax codes. Neither you nor I have that kind of leverage.

    The right-wing in the US loves capitalism as long as it applies to the poor and the working-class, and favors socialism when it applies to the wealthy and to corporations. It's a very perverse philosophy that bears no resemblance to real conservatism.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Free speech and cap 'n trade troubles
  1. Free Speech Zone (Replies: 34)

  2. Free speech zones? (Replies: 44)

  3. Guns vs. free speech (Replies: 207)

Loading...