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

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.

When you're trying to slow down global warming, beware of unintended

consequences.

As U.S. lawmakers work on the details of their greenhouse-gas

legislation, they are looking carefully at Europe's experience. Five

Senate proposals all use the same basic approach, known as "cap and

trade," that Europe has used for the past two years. But what the

snappy name "cap and trade" means is that the market will put a price

on something that's always been free: the right of a factory to emit

carbon gases. That could affect the cost of everything from

windowpanes to airline tickets to electricity.

Europe has already hit a few bumps with its program. There's the Dutch

silicon carbide maker that calls itself the greenest such plant in the

world, but now can't afford to run full-time; the French cement

workers who fear they're going to lose jobs to Morocco, which doesn't

have to meet the European guidelines; and the German homeowners who

pay 25 percent more for electricity than they did before -- even as

their utility companies earn record profits.

In some ways, Europe's program has been a success. It covers 45

percent of the continent's emissions, 10,000 companies and 27 European

Union countries. It has built registries that list carbon dioxide

emissions for every major plant.

In other ways, the approach has been a bureaucratic morass with a host

of unexpected and costly side effects and a much smaller effect on

carbon emissions than planned. And many companies complain that it is

unfair.

Consider the plight of Kollo Holding's factory in the Netherlands,

which makes silicon carbide, a material used as an industrial abrasive

and lining for high-temperature furnaces and kilns. Its managers like

to think of their plant as an ecological standout: They use waste

gases to generate energy and have installed the latest

pollution-control equipment.

But Europe's program has driven electricity prices so high that the

facility routinely shuts down for part of the day to save money on

power. Although demand for its products is strong, the plant has laid

off 40 of its 130 employees and trimmed production. Two customers have

turned to cheaper imports from China, which is not covered by Europe's

costly regulations.

"It's crazy," said Kusters, the plant director, as he stood among

steaming black mounds of petroleum coke and sand in northern Holland.

"We not only have the most energy-efficient plant in the world but

also the most environmentally friendly."

A few hundred miles away, in northern France, Pruvost took to the

streets with 400 other cement workers from the region last December to

protest a license for a rival company that plans to take advantage of

Europe's system for controlling greenhouse gases by circumventing it.

The rival wants to import material from Morocco, where factories don't

have to pay to emit carbon gas.

Pruvost, 54, has worked for 30 years at a cement plant in the tiny

town of Dannes in the gentle bluffs near the English Channel, as his

father did before him. Looking for another job, Pruvost mused as he

stood above a noisy giant mixing machine, would be "unimaginable."

Though the potential rival factory has a permit, it has not started

building the grinding facility it will need for the cheap imports.

Of all the effects of the new rules, the rise in the price of power

has aroused the most outrage. Much of the anger of consumers and

industries has been aimed at the continent's utility companies. Like

other firms, the utilities were given slightly fewer allowances than

they needed. But instead of charging customers for the cost of buying

allowances to cover the shortfall, utilities in much of Europe charged

customers for 100 percent of the tradable allowances they were given

-- even though the government handed them out free. Electricity rates

soared.

The chief executive of one utility, Vattenfall, which owns a coal

plant that is one of the continent's biggest carbon emitters, defended

the decision. Lars G. Josefsson, who is also an adviser to German

Chancellor Angela Merkel, said higher electricity prices are "the

intent of the whole exercise. . . . If there were no effects, why

should you have a cap-and-trade system?"

But consumers ask why four big utilities that dominate the German

market got to keep the money.

U.S. Pioneered System

The cap-and-trade system, modeled on a U.S. program that reduced

sulfur dioxide emissions, sets a gradually shrinking target for

Europe's carbon dioxide emissions and divides it by country.

Each country then rations shares to power plants and factories. The

allocations are designed to fall short of past use, forcing companies

to cut emissions, get credit for reducing greenhouse gases in

developing countries or buy spare allowances from other firms to make

up the shortfall. That creates a market, and a market price, for

allowances.

However, because of lobbying by well-connected companies, the E.U.'s

limits on emissions ended up being higher than the actual emissions.

As a result, fewer companies than expected had to buy emissions this

year, and the price of carbon allowances, which had topped $30 per ton

of carbon about a year ago, crashed to about $1 a ton. That eased some

of the pressure on electricity rates, but prices for next year, after

tighter E.U. limits take effect, are still about $20 a ton.

The E.U. is drawing up new rules for a second phase of its program,

due to run from 2008 to 2012, but those, too, have sparked

controversy.

Fights have erupted as countries seek to guard their interests.

Eastern European nations have lobbied for more generous allocations

because of their communist legacies and lower living standards.

Germany, the continent's largest wind-energy producer, wants an E.U.

mandate that each country get 20 percent of its energy from renewable

resources by 2020; Poland, which uses no renewable resources, is

resisting.

Germany boasts that it has cut emissions to 18.4 percent below 1990

levels, the benchmark used in the Kyoto Protocol and in Europe. But

nearly half the reduction was because of sagging industrial output in

the former East Germany after reunification. For the 2008-2012 period,

E.U. officials sliced 5 percent off Germany's emissions proposal.

Individual companies have also haggled over whether their historical

records were representative emission benchmarks.

"A paper mill in Italy would get different credits from a paper mill

in Germany, even if they are completely the same," said Marco Mensink,

energy and environment director of the Confederation of European Paper

Industries.

Perversely, Europe's cap-and-trade system has done little to reduce

output at such places as the Janschwalde coal plant, Europe's

third-biggest carbon dioxide emitter. Each year, it spews more than 25

million tons of carbon dioxide. The dirty gray plant still has

turbines and generators that date from Soviet times. It has nine

cooling towers, and just half of its output can power all of Berlin.

But the cap-and-trade system does provide an extra reward for

efficiency. And the owner of the plant, the Swedish energy firm

Vattenfall, installed new blades in the old Russian turbine, boosting

the plant's efficiency to 36 percent, from 33 percent. Vattenfall has

also retrofitted a 1,600-megawatt plant nearby at Schwarze Pumpe,

which has a much higher efficiency rate.

At the other end of the transmission line, companies like Kollo live

with the new rules as best they can. Each day, the silicon carbide

plant's managers decide what they can afford to pay for electricity,

and the utility tells them how many hours are available at that price.

One day last month, the firm was told it could buy only 21 hours at

the price it bid, so Kollo turned off the plant for three hours. That

lengthens the 10-day manufacturing cycle and, contrary to

environmental goals, reduces energy efficiency.

Starting in 2008, the E.U. will probably hand out allowances based on

industries' best practices. The new standards, designed to eliminate

disputed historical benchmarks, should favor efficient plants rather

than grandfathering emission levels from inefficient ones.

Joost Demmink, Kollo's process manager, fears that the allocations

will cover only half of what Kollo needs. If that happens, Kollo could

spend about $1.3 million to cover the shortfall -- more than its

profit in 2006.

Similar fears grip the French cement factory in Dannes, which is owned

by Holcim. Vincent Bichet, the regional director general, said the

company has cut energy costs -- and carbon emissions -- by using slag

from steel plants or waste dumps and by reducing the amount of an

energy-intensive material called clinker in its product.

But the new competitor may still undercut Holcim, Bichet said, because

it doesn't have to pay carbon-emissions costs. The E.U. cap-and-trade

system has led to a "distortion of competition" he said. "I've been

yelling about this. What do you want me to do? Put a plant in

Mauritania or Morocco and close this one?"

There's one more irony: The Moroccan clinker may have produced more

carbon dioxide than clinker made in Dannes. "This is going the wrong

way from an environmental point of view," Bichet said.

Lessons From Experience

Last week, a delegation of California state officials finished an

eight-day tour of European capitals to figure out how they can learn

from Europe's mistakes. And a week earlier, the Senate Energy and

Natural Resources Committee held a roundtable discussion with half a

dozen European executives, officials and consultants to figure out how

to adapt Europe's system while avoiding some problems in the

translation.

An increasing number of U.S. industry leaders -- including top

executives of auto companies, FedEx, General Electric and major

utilities -- have joined environmentalists in backing variation of a

cap-and-trade system, and the Senate bills have bipartisan support.

One key issue is how to deal with imports from countries that don't

price carbon. A U.S. system that raised costs for U.S. firms would

make imported goods, especially from India and China, even more

competitive, adding to the trade deficit and possibly driving U.S.

companies out of business. But, for now, demanding that China act on

greenhouse gases is a non-starter, and waiting for Beijing could be an

excuse for inaction, proponents of U.S. legislation say.

Other questions include whether emission permits should be given away

or auctioned off. Should the system cover airlines and automobiles as

well as factories? Should quotas be imposed when fuels are burned or

when they are extracted from the ground?

"People in Washington have begun to focus on the cost of climate

change," said Paul Bledsoe, strategy director at the National

Commission on Energy Policy. "But it's important to recognize that

legislation to mitigate climate change is going to have significant

economic costs, as well."

--

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:

> 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.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 05:32:55 -0400, 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.

Tax wars eh? Who will set the goals and who will monitor 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

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.

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.

--

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

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.

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.

--

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

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?

Captain Compassion wrote:

>

> Energy taxes are regressive.

All "market-based" approaches are regressive. Such is the Captain's

selective concern.

--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 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. 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.

Eventually the populace has to pay.

--

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 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.

--

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 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.

Sorry, I'm not one of your co-religionists.

--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 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?

> 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.

> Eventually the populace has to pay.

The costs associated with global warming will surely be higher.

--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

In article <icjs13l0uag6ia79g6q75v9d2iqt3ct874@4ax.com>,

Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> 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. Poor consumers pay a higher % of their

> income for energy.

And they would get a credit worth an equal share of the country's

pollution quota. If the market values on per-capita share of the

pollution shares market at $100, they would get $100 for it. So

they'd be $100 ahead. But being poor, they use LESS than an average

share of resources, so this would add a net cost to goods, fuel and

services of maybe $40. So this poor guy would be $60 ahead. Those

who would not end up ahead are those who use pollution-generating

resources at GREATER than the per-capita average.

> What might be a 1% increase in energy costs for a

> wealthy person will be a 10% increase for a person with less income.

>

> Eventually the populace has to pay.

Users would have to pay pass-through costs, according to their usage of

polluting resources.

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.

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.

>> 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.

>> Eventually the populace has to pay.

>

>The costs associated with global warming will surely be higher.

>

Not in evidence.

--

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 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.

--

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 Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:22:11 -0700, Captain Compassion

<daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:

>Energy companies have to pay for credits. Any increase costs are

>passed on to the consumer. 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.

Nonsense. A wealthy person uses a lot more energy. And a percent is

a percent whether it's 1% of a $100 electric bill or a $1000 electric

bill.

>Eventually the populace has to pay.

We pay for everything already. The only difference is which direction

the money goes after we spend it.

Swill

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.

In any case, rising energy costs are a good thing. They reduce our

consumption and therefore our importation of energy.

Swill

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"?

Swill

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