Free speech and cap 'n trade troubles

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    trade
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications and criticisms of cap-and-trade legislation as a mechanism for addressing climate change. Participants express concerns about its effectiveness, potential for exploitation, and the broader economic impacts, including job loss and environmental degradation. The conversation touches on themes of free speech in relation to governmental policies and the role of financial intermediaries in environmental regulation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that cap-and-trade is a financial scheme that benefits a few at the expense of many, with little actual progress in reducing emissions.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for loopholes in cap-and-trade systems that may allow major polluters to evade stricter emissions standards.
  • Some participants suggest that existing technologies for reducing emissions should be rewarded rather than funding financial middlemen.
  • There are claims that cap-and-trade does not address the root problems of pollution and may even exacerbate existing environmental issues.
  • Participants express a desire for stricter enforcement of pollution standards and investment in domestic manufacturing to create jobs and improve environmental conditions.
  • Some contributions reflect skepticism about the motivations behind cap-and-trade, linking it to broader issues of corruption and lobbying in politics.
  • There are mixed feelings about the impact of outsourcing manufacturing jobs, with some advocating for policies that favor domestic production while others recognize the rights of companies to operate globally.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some agreeing on the ineffectiveness of cap-and-trade while others emphasize the need for a balanced approach to environmental regulation and economic stability. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the issue.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments depend on specific assumptions about the effectiveness of cap-and-trade and the motivations of companies involved in environmental regulation. There are unresolved questions about the economic implications of shifting manufacturing jobs and the potential for domestic energy production to impact trade balances.

Andre
Messages
4,296
Reaction score
73
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/epa-employees-silenced-criticizing-cap-trade/

Laurie Williams and husband Alan Zabel worked as lawyers for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in its San Francisco office for more than 20 years, and they know more about climate change than most politicians. But when the couple released a video on the Internet expressing their concerns over the Obama administration’s plans to use cap-and-trade legislation to fight climate change, they were told to keep it to themselves.
...
"Cap-and-trade with offsets provides a false sense of progress and puts money in the pockets of investors," Zabel said in the video. "We think that these restrictions might not be constitutional," he said...

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:
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
Let's not forget Humana and the CMS/health care debate.
 
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.
 
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.
 
It's good to see we have a consensus on both sides of the politcal spectrum on this issue here in the PF.
 
Astronuc said:
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.

I could not possibly agree more.
 
drankin said:
It's good to see we have a consensus on both sides of the politcal spectrum on this issue here in the PF.

Wow...you mean we finally found our *one* issue? Aaaahhh...let's have a group hug and sing Kumbaya...:-p!
 
lisab said:
Wow...you mean we finally found our *one* issue? Aaaahhh...let's have a group hug and sing Kumbaya...:-p!
Dibs on the Smores!
 
  • #10
turbo-1 said:
Dibs on the Smores!

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...
 
  • #11
lisab said:
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...
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:
 
  • #12
turbo-1 said:
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:

NO to smores...
 
  • #13
turbo-1 said:
It's hard to negotiate with folks that are intent on saying NO as long as they are out of power, though. :frown:
A picture is worth a thousand words:
MG_0216x.jpg
 
  • #14
drankin said:
NO to smores...

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.
 
  • #15
WhoWee said:
At the same time, I'm not in favor of chasing our manufacturing base offshore.
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.
 
  • #16
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.
 
  • #17
turbo-1 said:
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.

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.
 
  • #18
Nebula815 said:
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.
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.
 
  • #19
turbo-1 said:
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.

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.
 
  • #20
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.
 
  • #21
turbo-1 said:
The US could save a whole bunch of money, improve revenues, and reduce waste and overhead by simplifying the tax code for everybody.

I agree.

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.

You mean Big Business I am assuming, because not all corporations are big. However, I'd think it's more the tax attorneys and big accounting firms that would scream the loudest, not the big corporations.

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.

Depends on which aspect of the "right-wing" you are talking about. The Reagan conservatives and libertarians certainly do not favor any socialism for Big Business. They are pro-free market, not pro-Big Business.

The blue-blood, elitist, establishment, country-club, Big Business Republicans are the kind you are referring to I'd think, and they are not exactly right-wing (they are also a world of difference from the strict free-market, blue-collar Republicans). They tend to be pretty okay with spending lots of money on social issues/programs (as we saw when they had the Presidency (Bush) and the Congress), just not to the degree of the Democrats. Deficits, instead of being a bad thing, it became about keeping a 'manageable sized deficit." And they have no problem with helping their Big Business friends via tariffs or subsidies (not always, but oftentimes).

Someone said not too long ago, the Republicans and Democrats in Washington don't differ over whether government should be big or small, they just differ over the type of big government the nation should have.
 
  • #22
Nebula815 said:
Depends on which aspect of the "right-wing" you are talking about. The Reagan conservatives and libertarians certainly do not favor any socialism for Big Business. They are pro-free market, not pro-Big Business.
I would have to disagree here. The Neo-cons and their cheerleaders in the media are all for taxing the public to give favors to businesses. Socialism for businesses is alive and well. There are lots of businesses that we taxpayers have bailed out that did not deserve our efforts, and there are plenty of those that are paying bonuses to the same crews of creeps that drove our economy into the ditch.
 
  • #23
turbo-1 said:
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.
What are you even talking about? It's the left wing that wants to apply "socialism" to the wealthy and corporations, along with the rest of us. Attempts to stop that are called "right wing" or "conservative" by everyone but you.

Using your own undisclosed definitions for the terms you use is not conducive to honest debate, it's just hateful nonsense.
 
  • #24
turbo-1 said:
I would have to disagree here. The Neo-cons and their cheerleaders in the media are all for taxing the public to give favors to businesses.

Which cheerleaders...? I don't know of any news outlets that could be defined as "right-wing" that support bailouts for Big Business or taxing the public to pay for said bailouts...?

Socialism for businesses is alive and well. There are lots of businesses that we taxpayers have bailed out that did not deserve our efforts, and there are plenty of those that are paying bonuses to the same crews of creeps that drove our economy into the ditch.

Well the bailouts for the auto industry most on the right would agree were wrong, but that was more a bailout of the United Auto Workers Union by the Obama administration, not the auto industry itself, I'd say.

As for the financial firms, most on the hard right were against the bailout; those who supported the bailout on the grounds of just to prevent the financial system, and hence the economy, from collapsing, did so very reluctantly.

Most on the right that I have seen fully agree about there being socialism for these big Wall Street financial firms however, as they are literally too big to be allowed to fail.

Because they are too big to be allowed to fail, they are smug knowing that in the end, the government will always bail them out. This is bad, and these firms need to either be regulated to a much more extreme degree than the rest of the banking and financial sector (the firms that are allowed to fail) OR they need to be broken up I think, as this is not free-market capitalism.

The financial system is a form of utility, and as such there needs to be a limit on how large some of these firms can get. That, or much more stringent oversight for the big firms since they are quasi-socialist (i.e. the safety net of the taxpayer).

That is what created the Fannie-Freddie disasters. They were supposedly backed up by the government, but exempt from even the most basic SEC reporting requirements (!).

Those banks and financial firms not big enough to need any bailout, that are permitted to fail, would not be subject to such extreme regulation as the big firms. The extra regulation would be the price of the taxpayer safety net.
 
  • #25
Nebula815 said:
That is what created the Fannie-Freddie disasters. They were supposedly backed up by the government, but exempt from even the most basic SEC reporting requirements (!).
What caused the Fannie-Freddie problems was their government created mandate to buy bad mortgages, and their requirement that bad mortgages be bundled with good ones. This artificial demand for bad mortgages was 100% created by government.

The banks (like mine) that refused to issue bad mortgages for Fannie and Freddie were accused of "not caring about poor people", etc., but these banks are doing just fine with no bailouts.

The banks that went along with the insanity, well you know how they did.
 
  • #26
This thread has drifted off topic.
 
  • #27
Well the cap and trade part was settled by the third or fourth post, so it seems everyone is now just concentrating on their right to say what they want(free speech).
 
  • #28
do we all still agree that C&T = PC BS?
 
  • #29
lisab said:
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...
I agree that cap and trade is dumb.

It sounds like you are letting the market do the work so you can pretend to care about capitalism while fixing pollution, but the reality is that it allows you to completely ignore how both the markets and the science work and set arbitrary limits for the government to profit. It is a revenue stream, not a solution to the pollution problem.

If the government wants to control CO2 production, it needs to take an active hand in going after coal power plants and promoting nuclear power rather than pretending the issue will fix itself with this economic parlor trick.

What will happen (is happening) is that coal power will get more expensive, which will promote the use of alternatives. But since nuclear plants aren't being built yet and take at least a decade to come on line and wind and solar (etc) can't provide anywhere near the capacity needed, the power companies simply pass the cap and trade penalty on to the consumers in the form of higher energy costs.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
I heard an interesting presentation by a University of Maine professor on PBS the other day. He was talking about renewable sources of power (like wind, but tidal generation could as easily have been included) and he posited that improvements in electric vehicles (and increasing sales of same) could provide a great way to use power generated at off-peak times. People go home at night and plug in their electric vehicles for recharging, and the batteries would provide a bulk storage capacity for power produced off-peak, without the need to massively upgrade our infrastructure to transmit the excess power out-of-state. Maine could still be a net exporter of electrical power, as we are today, but if wind-generated power gets attractively priced and the price of electric-powered vehicles drops, we would have a nice confluence of events.

There are some details to iron out, but what if electricity consumed during off-peak consumption hours was metered at a much lower rate than during peak hours? Folks could set their car-charger to run at 10, 11 or 12 in the evening for instance and shut off whenever charging was complete. That would flatten consumption rates so that load-switching would be minimal.