Europe's Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases

  • Thread starter Captain Compassion
  • Start date
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:57:23 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:

>>Some things are worth paying for.
>
>Feel free to pay what ever you choose. Leave me out of your equation.

We all have to do it or we all have to not. Majority rules and I say
let energy costs rise. Gas went up twenty cents around here last
week. Did I not say last year it would start going back up after the
elections?

Swill
 
On Apr 8, 10:06 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
> Europe's Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases
>
> By Steven Mufson
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Monday, April 9, 2007; A01
>
> Wout Kusters, director of a manufacturing plant in the Dutch lowlands,
> knows something the U.S. Congress needs to know. So does Gervais
> Pruvost, a laborer in a small cement plant in northern France. So does
> just about every German homeowner.
>

The EU has exceeded its planned Kiyoto limits. Exceeded as in
'failed'. For the last two years.

But the true problem is not with the well-intentioned do-gooder
socialist smurfs of the EU (or possibly in the US for that matter)..

No.. the problem is with the globalizing impetus of the WTO, NAFTA,
and other globalizing regimes.
Because the problem is that non-restricted Kiyoto signatories have
little or no limits upon the amount of pollution that they are allowed
to emit.

China - which now produces and exports more than the US (!) has NO
Kiyoto assigned pollution limits.

China also plans to start up over 800 new coal-fired power plants in
the next few years.

China plans to do this even though researchers now state that the
particulate pollution cloud (even now) coming out of red china can on
occassion cover half the distance of the Pacific Ocean to north
america - and is causing excessive cloud formation resulting in
significant weather modification.

If china fires up those 800 new plants, the situation will get even
worse.

Summary:
The current globalization schemes set economic restrictions against
western industry (western standards of living) - while it gives
polluters china and india free reign to generate as much crap as they
wish. And they do.. to everyone else's detriment.
 
Captain Compassion wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:56:25 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
> <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <tljs13d0b5b7puuqhd723njhe1r9q977tu@4ax.com>,
>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:08:52 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>>><jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Energy taxes are regressive.
>>>>
>>>>All "market-based" approaches are regressive. Such is the Captain's
>>>>selective concern.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Let the market work. Increasing costs through artificial means is
>>>always harmful.
>>
>>Until you establish the market for pollution, it can't work. Increasing
>>the cost of pollution will harm pollution, and benefit the environment.
>>
>>Some things are worth paying for.
>
> Feel free to pay what ever you choose. Leave me out of your equation.

As soon as you leave for the libertarian wonderland of Somalia.

--Jeff

--
We can have democracy or we can have
great wealth concentrated in the hands
of the few. We cannot have both.
--Justice Louis Brandeis
 
Captain Compassion wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:54:40 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
> <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:01:13 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <81ro1319dvu5r5042td8ch66u29v4lngp6@4ax.com>,
>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:37:43 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <fp3m1352impfnclt5q1nl8d4qog2ejukbv@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:56:38 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <bLnSh.249$sJ.51@newsfe06.lga>, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Europe's Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Easy to fix. Just pass a VAT tax on any imports from any country not
>>>>>>>>>meeting their goals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The other problem with cap and trade is that the credits are given to
>>>>>>>>the polluters. The bigger a polluter you are, the more you get issued to
>>>>>>>>you free by the government. Instead, the government should issue the
>>>>>>>>pollution credits to the populace, and the industries should have to
>>>>>>>>purchase them from the populace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What ever the industries have to pay for the credits the "populace"
>>>>>>>will have to pay in increased costs for what ever goods and services
>>>>>>>the industry provides.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is so. But the point I am making is that the right to breathe
>>>>>>clean air as well as the privilege to pollute it belong equally to
>>>>>>everyone. Those who choose to exercise the latter privilege should
>>>>>>have to pay those who are willing to sell it. They can then sell the
>>>>>>produce of it back to the populace, or to whomever is willing to buy
>>>>>>it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Energy taxes are regressive.
>>>>
>>>>What has that to do with pollution credits being handed out on a
>>>>per-capita basis?
>>>
>>>Energy companies have to pay for credits. Any increase costs are
>>>passed on to the consumer.
>>
>>Nonsense. Why is it that profits always seem to disappear from the
>>equation when they are not convenient to discuss?
>
> Do you believe that corporations are altruistic? Of course there is
> profit. Without profit there is no product.

And they can pay for credits out of their profits too.

>>>Poor consumers pay a higher % of their
>>>income for energy. What might be a 1% increase in energy costs for a
>>>wealthy person will be a 10% increase for a person with less income.
>>
>>Then we need to increase funding for LIHEAP and similar programs.
>
> The populace has to pay for LIHEAP unless Chavez wants to pay more.

Well pony up if you're so concerned about the poor people who are
facing such large increases in their energy bills.

>>>Eventually the populace has to pay.
>>
>>The costs associated with global warming will surely be higher.
>
> Not in evidence.

I don't know how you can see anything with your head so far up your ass.

--Jeff

--
We can have democracy or we can have
great wealth concentrated in the hands
of the few. We cannot have both.
--Justice Louis Brandeis
 
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:30:50 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:55:06 -0700, Captain Compassion
><daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Energy companies have to pay for credits. Any increase costs are
>>>> passed on to the consumer.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Why is it that profits always seem to disappear from the
>>>equation when they are not convenient to discuss?
>>>
>>Do you believe that corporations are altruistic? Of course there is
>>profit. Without profit there is no product.
>
>Considering the profits the energy industry takes, I seriously doubt
>they'll have any problem with paying for credits.
>
This "credit" thing is a cost of doing business and the cost of doing
is always passed on to the consumer.

>In any case, rising energy costs are a good thing. They reduce our
>consumption and therefore our importation of energy.
>
Then I assume that you are not one of those complaining about the high
price of gasoline.


--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.


"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:31:29 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:23:53 -0700, Captain Compassion
><daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:08:52 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>><jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Energy taxes are regressive.
>>>
>>>All "market-based" approaches are regressive. Such is the Captain's
>>>selective concern.
>>>
>>Let the market work. Increasing costs through artificial means is
>>always harmful.
>
>"Always"?
>
Always!


--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.


"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:32:39 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:57:23 -0700, Captain Compassion
><daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>
>>>Some things are worth paying for.
>>
>>Feel free to pay what ever you choose. Leave me out of your equation.
>
>We all have to do it or we all have to not. Majority rules and I say
>let energy costs rise. Gas went up twenty cents around here last
>week. Did I not say last year it would start going back up after the
>elections?
>
If you haven't noticed the price of gasoline usually goes up in the
spring and summer and down in the fall and winter unless there are
circumstances in the oil producing areas that dictate otherwise.

I don't believe that the majority want the energy prices to rise.




--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.


"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:42:42 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
<jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

>Captain Compassion wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:56:25 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>> <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <tljs13d0b5b7puuqhd723njhe1r9q977tu@4ax.com>,
>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:08:52 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>>>><jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Energy taxes are regressive.
>>>>>
>>>>>All "market-based" approaches are regressive. Such is the Captain's
>>>>>selective concern.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Let the market work. Increasing costs through artificial means is
>>>>always harmful.
>>>
>>>Until you establish the market for pollution, it can't work. Increasing
>>>the cost of pollution will harm pollution, and benefit the environment.
>>>
>>>Some things are worth paying for.
>>
>> Feel free to pay what ever you choose. Leave me out of your equation.
>
>As soon as you leave for the libertarian wonderland of Somalia.
>
I suspect that those who will try to make me pay for their schemes
even in the Horn of Africa. So I'll ignore you from here.



--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.


"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:49:15 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
<jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

>Captain Compassion wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:54:40 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>> <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:01:13 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <81ro1319dvu5r5042td8ch66u29v4lngp6@4ax.com>,
>>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:37:43 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <fp3m1352impfnclt5q1nl8d4qog2ejukbv@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:56:38 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <bLnSh.249$sJ.51@newsfe06.lga>, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Europe's Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Easy to fix. Just pass a VAT tax on any imports from any country not
>>>>>>>>>>meeting their goals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The other problem with cap and trade is that the credits are given to
>>>>>>>>>the polluters. The bigger a polluter you are, the more you get issued to
>>>>>>>>>you free by the government. Instead, the government should issue the
>>>>>>>>>pollution credits to the populace, and the industries should have to
>>>>>>>>>purchase them from the populace.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What ever the industries have to pay for the credits the "populace"
>>>>>>>>will have to pay in increased costs for what ever goods and services
>>>>>>>>the industry provides.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is so. But the point I am making is that the right to breathe
>>>>>>>clean air as well as the privilege to pollute it belong equally to
>>>>>>>everyone. Those who choose to exercise the latter privilege should
>>>>>>>have to pay those who are willing to sell it. They can then sell the
>>>>>>>produce of it back to the populace, or to whomever is willing to buy
>>>>>>>it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Energy taxes are regressive.
>>>>>
>>>>>What has that to do with pollution credits being handed out on a
>>>>>per-capita basis?
>>>>
>>>>Energy companies have to pay for credits. Any increase costs are
>>>>passed on to the consumer.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Why is it that profits always seem to disappear from the
>>>equation when they are not convenient to discuss?
>>
>> Do you believe that corporations are altruistic? Of course there is
>> profit. Without profit there is no product.
>
>And they can pay for credits out of their profits too.
>
Won't happen. "Credits" are a cost of doing business just like
payroll, product and taxes. The populace always pays.

>>>>Poor consumers pay a higher % of their
>>>>income for energy. What might be a 1% increase in energy costs for a
>>>>wealthy person will be a 10% increase for a person with less income.
>>>
>>>Then we need to increase funding for LIHEAP and similar programs.
>>
>> The populace has to pay for LIHEAP unless Chavez wants to pay more.
>
>Well pony up if you're so concerned about the poor people who are
>facing such large increases in their energy bills.
>
I suspect that I all ready have.

>>>>Eventually the populace has to pay.
>>>
>>>The costs associated with global warming will surely be higher.
>>
>> Not in evidence.
>
>I don't know how you can see anything with your head so far up your ass.
>
The only costs associated with CAGW so far is the amount of research
being done to prove so called "settled science".



--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.


"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
Captain Compassion wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:49:15 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
> <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:54:40 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>>><jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:01:13 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <81ro1319dvu5r5042td8ch66u29v4lngp6@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:37:43 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <fp3m1352impfnclt5q1nl8d4qog2ejukbv@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:56:38 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <bLnSh.249$sJ.51@newsfe06.lga>, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Europe's Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Easy to fix. Just pass a VAT tax on any imports from any country not
>>>>>>>>>>>meeting their goals.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The other problem with cap and trade is that the credits are given to
>>>>>>>>>>the polluters. The bigger a polluter you are, the more you get issued to
>>>>>>>>>>you free by the government. Instead, the government should issue the
>>>>>>>>>>pollution credits to the populace, and the industries should have to
>>>>>>>>>>purchase them from the populace.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What ever the industries have to pay for the credits the "populace"
>>>>>>>>>will have to pay in increased costs for what ever goods and services
>>>>>>>>>the industry provides.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is so. But the point I am making is that the right to breathe
>>>>>>>>clean air as well as the privilege to pollute it belong equally to
>>>>>>>>everyone. Those who choose to exercise the latter privilege should
>>>>>>>>have to pay those who are willing to sell it. They can then sell the
>>>>>>>>produce of it back to the populace, or to whomever is willing to buy
>>>>>>>>it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Energy taxes are regressive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What has that to do with pollution credits being handed out on a
>>>>>>per-capita basis?
>>>>>
>>>>>Energy companies have to pay for credits. Any increase costs are
>>>>>passed on to the consumer.
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense. Why is it that profits always seem to disappear from the
>>>>equation when they are not convenient to discuss?
>>>
>>>Do you believe that corporations are altruistic? Of course there is
>>>profit. Without profit there is no product.
>>
>>And they can pay for credits out of their profits too.
>
> Won't happen. "Credits" are a cost of doing business just like
> payroll, product and taxes. The populace always pays.

Who guarantees anyone a certain level of profits?

>>>>>Poor consumers pay a higher % of their
>>>>>income for energy. What might be a 1% increase in energy costs for a
>>>>>wealthy person will be a 10% increase for a person with less income.
>>>>
>>>>Then we need to increase funding for LIHEAP and similar programs.
>>>
>>>The populace has to pay for LIHEAP unless Chavez wants to pay more.
>>
>>Well pony up if you're so concerned about the poor people who are
>>facing such large increases in their energy bills.
>
> I suspect that I all ready have.

Nah, what you've paid hasn't even covered the war in Iraq. There's
still a several hundred billion deficit.

>>>>>Eventually the populace has to pay.
>>>>
>>>>The costs associated with global warming will surely be higher.
>>>
>>>Not in evidence.
>>
>>I don't know how you can see anything with your head so far up your ass.
>
> The only costs associated with CAGW so far is the amount of research
> being done to prove so called "settled science".

One estimate, from the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), is
that if nothing is done to restrain greenhouse gas emissions, annual
economic damages could reach US$20 trillion by 2100 (expressed in U.S.
dollars at 2002 prices), or 6 to 8 percent of global economic output at
that time. The same study found that immediate adoption of active
climate protection policies could limit the temperature increase to 2
 
In article <paf023l3phd30nq7agn1k499f5i845g44c@4ax.com>,
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:32:39 -0400, Governor Swill
> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:57:23 -0700, Captain Compassion
> ><daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>Some things are worth paying for.
> >>
> >>Feel free to pay what ever you choose. Leave me out of your equation.
> >
> >We all have to do it or we all have to not. Majority rules and I say
> >let energy costs rise. Gas went up twenty cents around here last
> >week. Did I not say last year it would start going back up after the
> >elections?
> >
> If you haven't noticed the price of gasoline usually goes up in the
> spring and summer and down in the fall and winter unless there are
> circumstances in the oil producing areas that dictate otherwise.
>
> I don't believe that the majority want the energy prices to rise.

Of course they don't. They have to get something for it. A saleable
energy credit would be a nice exchange.
 
In article <g9f023dscti45iml7vd56p66etd5tl6jl8@4ax.com>,
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:31:29 -0400, Governor Swill
> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:23:53 -0700, Captain Compassion
> ><daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:08:52 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
> >><jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Captain Compassion wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Energy taxes are regressive.
> >>>
> >>>All "market-based" approaches are regressive. Such is the Captain's
> >>>selective concern.
> >>>
> >>Let the market work. Increasing costs through artificial means is
> >>always harmful.
> >
> >"Always"?
> >
> Always!

He's right. Increasing the cost of pollution would "harm" pollution.
Which would be good for people. See how it works?
 
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:00:53 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
<jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

>Captain Compassion wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:49:15 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>> <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:54:40 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>>>><jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:01:13 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <81ro1319dvu5r5042td8ch66u29v4lngp6@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:37:43 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <fp3m1352impfnclt5q1nl8d4qog2ejukbv@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:56:38 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>>>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In article <bLnSh.249$sJ.51@newsfe06.lga>, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Europe's Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Easy to fix. Just pass a VAT tax on any imports from any country not
>>>>>>>>>>>>meeting their goals.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The other problem with cap and trade is that the credits are given to
>>>>>>>>>>>the polluters. The bigger a polluter you are, the more you get issued to
>>>>>>>>>>>you free by the government. Instead, the government should issue the
>>>>>>>>>>>pollution credits to the populace, and the industries should have to
>>>>>>>>>>>purchase them from the populace.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What ever the industries have to pay for the credits the "populace"
>>>>>>>>>>will have to pay in increased costs for what ever goods and services
>>>>>>>>>>the industry provides.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That is so. But the point I am making is that the right to breathe
>>>>>>>>>clean air as well as the privilege to pollute it belong equally to
>>>>>>>>>everyone. Those who choose to exercise the latter privilege should
>>>>>>>>>have to pay those who are willing to sell it. They can then sell the
>>>>>>>>>produce of it back to the populace, or to whomever is willing to buy
>>>>>>>>>it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Energy taxes are regressive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What has that to do with pollution credits being handed out on a
>>>>>>>per-capita basis?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Energy companies have to pay for credits. Any increase costs are
>>>>>>passed on to the consumer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense. Why is it that profits always seem to disappear from the
>>>>>equation when they are not convenient to discuss?
>>>>
>>>>Do you believe that corporations are altruistic? Of course there is
>>>>profit. Without profit there is no product.
>>>
>>>And they can pay for credits out of their profits too.
>>
>> Won't happen. "Credits" are a cost of doing business just like
>> payroll, product and taxes. The populace always pays.
>
>Who guarantees anyone a certain level of profits?
>
The indivisible hand. Without profit there is no product.

>>>>>>Poor consumers pay a higher % of their
>>>>>>income for energy. What might be a 1% increase in energy costs for a
>>>>>>wealthy person will be a 10% increase for a person with less income.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then we need to increase funding for LIHEAP and similar programs.
>>>>
>>>>The populace has to pay for LIHEAP unless Chavez wants to pay more.
>>>
>>>Well pony up if you're so concerned about the poor people who are
>>>facing such large increases in their energy bills.
>>
>> I suspect that I all ready have.
>
>Nah, what you've paid hasn't even covered the war in Iraq. There's
>still a several hundred billion deficit.
>
>>>>>>Eventually the populace has to pay.
>>>>>
>>>>>The costs associated with global warming will surely be higher.
>>>>
>>>>Not in evidence.
>>>
>>>I don't know how you can see anything with your head so far up your ass.
>>
>> The only costs associated with CAGW so far is the amount of research
>> being done to prove so called "settled science".
>
>One estimate, from the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), is
>that if nothing is done to restrain greenhouse gas emissions, annual
>economic damages could reach US$20 trillion by 2100 (expressed in U.S.
>dollars at 2002 prices), or 6 to 8 percent of global economic output at
>that time. The same study found that immediate adoption of active
>climate protection policies could limit the temperature increase to 2
 
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 15:44:40 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:

>In article <paf023l3phd30nq7agn1k499f5i845g44c@4ax.com>,
> Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:32:39 -0400, Governor Swill
>> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:57:23 -0700, Captain Compassion
>> ><daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Some things are worth paying for.
>> >>
>> >>Feel free to pay what ever you choose. Leave me out of your equation.
>> >
>> >We all have to do it or we all have to not. Majority rules and I say
>> >let energy costs rise. Gas went up twenty cents around here last
>> >week. Did I not say last year it would start going back up after the
>> >elections?
>> >
>> If you haven't noticed the price of gasoline usually goes up in the
>> spring and summer and down in the fall and winter unless there are
>> circumstances in the oil producing areas that dictate otherwise.
>>
>> I don't believe that the majority want the energy prices to rise.
>
>Of course they don't. They have to get something for it. A saleable
>energy credit would be a nice exchange.

I see. I guess you can always burn them for heat.

--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.


"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
Captain Compassion wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:42:42 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
> <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:56:25 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <tljs13d0b5b7puuqhd723njhe1r9q977tu@4ax.com>,
>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:08:52 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>>>>><jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Energy taxes are regressive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All "market-based" approaches are regressive. Such is the Captain's
>>>>>>selective concern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let the market work. Increasing costs through artificial means is
>>>>>always harmful.
>>>>
>>>>Until you establish the market for pollution, it can't work. Increasing
>>>>the cost of pollution will harm pollution, and benefit the environment.
>>>>
>>>>Some things are worth paying for.
>>>
>>>Feel free to pay what ever you choose. Leave me out of your equation.
>>
>>As soon as you leave for the libertarian wonderland of Somalia.
>
> I suspect that those who will try to make me pay for their schemes
> even in the Horn of Africa. So I'll ignore you from here.

But any day now they should be wealthier than the U.S., right?

--Jeff

--
We can have democracy or we can have
great wealth concentrated in the hands
of the few. We cannot have both.
--Justice Louis Brandeis
 
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:27:41 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
<jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

>Captain Compassion wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:42:42 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>> <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:56:25 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <tljs13d0b5b7puuqhd723njhe1r9q977tu@4ax.com>,
>>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:08:52 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>>>>>><jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Energy taxes are regressive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All "market-based" approaches are regressive. Such is the Captain's
>>>>>>>selective concern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let the market work. Increasing costs through artificial means is
>>>>>>always harmful.
>>>>>
>>>>>Until you establish the market for pollution, it can't work. Increasing
>>>>>the cost of pollution will harm pollution, and benefit the environment.
>>>>>
>>>>>Some things are worth paying for.
>>>>
>>>>Feel free to pay what ever you choose. Leave me out of your equation.
>>>
>>>As soon as you leave for the libertarian wonderland of Somalia.
>>
>> I suspect that those who will try to make me pay for their schemes
>> even in the Horn of Africa. So I'll ignore you from here.
>
>But any day now they should be wealthier than the U.S., right?
>
They are Moslems. Capitalism is an alien concept for them.


--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.


"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
Captain Compassion wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:00:53 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
> <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:49:15 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>>><jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:54:40 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>>>>><jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:01:13 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <81ro1319dvu5r5042td8ch66u29v4lngp6@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:37:43 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <fp3m1352impfnclt5q1nl8d4qog2ejukbv@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:56:38 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>>>>>>>>>>><hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <bLnSh.249$sJ.51@newsfe06.lga>, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Europe's Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Easy to fix. Just pass a VAT tax on any imports from any country not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>meeting their goals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The other problem with cap and trade is that the credits are given to
>>>>>>>>>>>>the polluters. The bigger a polluter you are, the more you get issued to
>>>>>>>>>>>>you free by the government. Instead, the government should issue the
>>>>>>>>>>>>pollution credits to the populace, and the industries should have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>purchase them from the populace.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What ever the industries have to pay for the credits the "populace"
>>>>>>>>>>>will have to pay in increased costs for what ever goods and services
>>>>>>>>>>>the industry provides.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That is so. But the point I am making is that the right to breathe
>>>>>>>>>>clean air as well as the privilege to pollute it belong equally to
>>>>>>>>>>everyone. Those who choose to exercise the latter privilege should
>>>>>>>>>>have to pay those who are willing to sell it. They can then sell the
>>>>>>>>>>produce of it back to the populace, or to whomever is willing to buy
>>>>>>>>>>it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Energy taxes are regressive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What has that to do with pollution credits being handed out on a
>>>>>>>>per-capita basis?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Energy companies have to pay for credits. Any increase costs are
>>>>>>>passed on to the consumer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nonsense. Why is it that profits always seem to disappear from the
>>>>>>equation when they are not convenient to discuss?
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you believe that corporations are altruistic? Of course there is
>>>>>profit. Without profit there is no product.
>>>>
>>>>And they can pay for credits out of their profits too.
>>>
>>>Won't happen. "Credits" are a cost of doing business just like
>>>payroll, product and taxes. The populace always pays.
>>
>>Who guarantees anyone a certain level of profits?
>
> The indivisible hand. Without profit there is no product.

That's odd, Ford is still making cars.

>>>>>>>Poor consumers pay a higher % of their
>>>>>>>income for energy. What might be a 1% increase in energy costs for a
>>>>>>>wealthy person will be a 10% increase for a person with less income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then we need to increase funding for LIHEAP and similar programs.
>>>>>
>>>>>The populace has to pay for LIHEAP unless Chavez wants to pay more.
>>>>
>>>>Well pony up if you're so concerned about the poor people who are
>>>>facing such large increases in their energy bills.
>>>
>>>I suspect that I all ready have.
>>
>>Nah, what you've paid hasn't even covered the war in Iraq. There's
>>still a several hundred billion deficit.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>Eventually the populace has to pay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The costs associated with global warming will surely be higher.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not in evidence.
>>>>
>>>>I don't know how you can see anything with your head so far up your ass.
>>>
>>>The only costs associated with CAGW so far is the amount of research
>>>being done to prove so called "settled science".
>>
>>One estimate, from the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), is
>>that if nothing is done to restrain greenhouse gas emissions, annual
>>economic damages could reach US$20 trillion by 2100 (expressed in U.S.
>>dollars at 2002 prices), or 6 to 8 percent of global economic output at
>>that time. The same study found that immediate adoption of active
>>climate protection policies could limit the temperature increase to 2
 
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:32:03 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:

>>Considering the profits the energy industry takes, I seriously doubt
>>they'll have any problem with paying for credits.
>>
>This "credit" thing is a cost of doing business and the cost of doing
>is always passed on to the consumer.

Exactly. Consumers will then have reason to consume less thus fewer
credits must be bought.

>>In any case, rising energy costs are a good thing. They reduce our
>>consumption and therefore our importation of energy.
>>
>Then I assume that you are not one of those complaining about the high
>price of gasoline.

You are correct. I don't give a **** if it goes five dollars a gallon
by Christmas. Everytime gas goes up, traffic gets lighter and people
pay more attention to their driving.

Swill
 
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:08:31 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
<jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:00:53 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>><jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>One estimate, from the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), is
>>>that if nothing is done to restrain greenhouse gas emissions, annual
>>>economic damages could reach US$20 trillion by 2100 (expressed in U.S.
>>>dollars at 2002 prices), or 6 to 8 percent of global economic output at
>>>that time. The same study found that immediate adoption of active
>>>climate protection policies could limit the temperature increase to 2
 
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:36:45 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:

>>We all have to do it or we all have to not. Majority rules and I say
>>let energy costs rise. Gas went up twenty cents around here last
>>week. Did I not say last year it would start going back up after the
>>elections?
>>
>If you haven't noticed the price of gasoline usually goes up in the
>spring and summer and down in the fall and winter unless there are
>circumstances in the oil producing areas that dictate otherwise.

Does it normally go up sixty cents in four weeks?

Swill
 

Similar threads

Cloaked
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Terms of Service and Disclaimer
Replies
0
Views
2K
Cloaked
Cloaked
WorldNews
Greenhouse gases milestone shows need for action: WMO
Replies
0
Views
32
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Canada unveils carbon price, Alberta demands pipeline in return
Replies
0
Views
42
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Global deal reached to limit powerful greenhouse gases
Replies
0
Views
22
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
EPA clears path to regulate carbon emissions from U.S. aircraft
Replies
0
Views
33
WorldNews
WorldNews
Back
Top