California and Idaho get 1% of their electricity from coal, West Virginia is at 97%, Utah 89% – the big abusers need to be pressured downward. Since West Virginia and Utah produce a lot of coal, they will be hurt. But that is a reality of change, North Carolina, Virginia and Kentucky have lost trillions as government pressure and “negative” taxation have crippled the US tobacco industry. But that was to the benefit of the nation. Is anyone suggesting that we abandon environmental policy that will benefit the nation – just the protect West Virginia and Utah?

If the planet warms as predicted the tax goes up as planned.

If the planet stays the same the tax stays the same.

If the planet cools the tax is automatically revoked.

as has become utterly obvious from watching the bill move through congress, this is not going to be a tax. it’s going to be a giveaway. everyone is getting waivers. they are getting free credits. only the smallest and least politically connected companies are going to wind up having to buy anything.

this means several things:

1. it will not raise any meaningful revenue

2. it will not reduce CO2 production (assuming you believe it’s doing any harm which is very questionable). at best it will cap CO2, and i’d be surprised to even see it do that.

3. it will greatly distort future investment and make it very difficult for new entrants to compete with incumbents. if you have to buy a permit that others get for free, it does bad things to your cost structure.

so, in reality, cap and trade is not really a tax, it’s just a very sophisticated form of incumbent protection which is why congress and business alike are fans.

the fact that it’s unfair and distortionary are precisely the benefits of the program from their standpoint, not unfortunate side effects. they have a wonderful grand coalition here of congressmen looking to shower largess, existing firms dying to get it, and new firms that make uncompetitive technologies (like GE with its wind turbines) who are looking forward to market distortion that favors them.

it’s a political masterstroke, but economically horrible.

Why not? They screw poor black kids in the inner city in favor of powerful teachers unions. They screw people starting out at the bottom of the job totem pole with the minimum wage. They screw poor Asians seeking to get into quality universities. They screw our military personnel fighting on the front lines. They screw young workers starting out in favor of powerful unions. They screw small businesses in favor of big business contributors. They screw the world’s poorest in favor of rich environmentalists.

And that’s just a small sample of the way that Democrats screw the little guy. They even screw the little guy when they aim at the rich — see the disaster that followed the luxury tax when half the workers in the boat industry lost their jobs.

That’s the problem with Democrats. They’re always trying to use govt to screw somebody and the poor and the powerless end up getting it the worst. Even when they explicitly try to help the poor, see e.g. welfare, they end up hurting them instead.

The only people Democrats ever succeed in helping are those rich and powerful enough to buy favors from govt and those who work for govt.

I keep hearing this, but I think that people aren’t thinking about the full game that would play out. There’s no way that the Dems want to go down hurting the little guy. The follow-on to this would be a tax rebate or additional earned income credit (this is the one that pays out up to about $5K even to people that didn’t pay any taxes at all) to help low-income families with the much higher bills. So taxes for the middle class and up will have to rise.

So, Mr. Joe Middle Class, we need YOU to 1) pay more for energy and everything that is made from it AND 2) pay for the needy folks’ additional energy and general inflation as well. Double whammy for the middle class.

Another point about carbon taxes – in order for them to have the desired impact of reducing energy consumption, they would have to make it prohibitively expensive to use the energy. The idea that you can have a big carbon tax and then just rebate it doesn’t result in any emissions reduction. This is a great example of “no pain, no gain”.

We’ve reached the point where supporters of AGW could make a graceful exit. The IPCC models have been falsified by actual temperature observations since the AR4 report at a 95% confidence level. Unfortunately, it is too juicy to let go. He who controls carbon controls every facet of people’s lives. How can a government concede such a thing? It’s also a means to an end. The Dems want “clean energy” with windmills on every hillside and solar panels on every roof (along with the normal generating stations you needed anyway to provide the baseload) and someone has to pay for it. If they concede AGW, then it will be very difficult to convince anyone to pay for such things.

I’ve been trying to feel out this administration and Congress as well. I see again and again that the means don’t matter as long as the end is reached. I don’t like this as it destroys the principles that the country is supposed to be founded on. From the handling of the auto bankruptcies to the “fast tracking” of bills and the threat of EPA CO2 regulation, this administration isn’t afraid to use any means necessary to achieve the objective. I like what Jeff Flake is doing as reported by Coyote, hopefully they can get a couple of democrats to defect against some of these crazy bills that are in the works.

I’m thinking of writing to my congressmen (both republicans) and suggesting that they join Jeff Flake to have the others walk the talk that they’ve given us. Thanks Coyote!

Republicans simply do not have much say in this matter, having stupidly [and corruptly] blown whatever good will many people saw in the party. It seems obvious that massive reductions in spending are necessary, but Mussolini Obama is having none of that.