• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Maobama's Cap and Trade will raise rates

Sandhusker

Well-known member
March 2 (Bloomberg) -- Duke Energy Corp. Chief Executive Officer James Rogers said President Barack Obama’s plan to raise revenue from an emissions-trading system would increase electricity bills by as much as 40 percent in some U.S. states.

Rogers, who supports a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions, says the problem with Obama’s plan, unveiled last week as part of a $3.55 trillion budget, is it assumes an auction of all trading permits, bringing in $645.7 billion by 2019.

The CEO is among business leaders and lawmakers who favor giving away permits to some industries to offset the cost of the transition to a low-carbon energy economy. Rogers, who backed Obama in the election, said he’s concerned that some of the money raised may not be used to promote “clean” energy. Also, consumers in the states that are the biggest users of coal for energy would be hit with higher electricity costs, he said.

“They would be asking people in these 25 states to carry a heavy burden and then not get the money to help them solve the problem,” Rogers said in an interview Feb. 27.

Duke, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, fell 55 cents, or 4.1 percent, to close at $12.92 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading today and has dropped 14 percent this year.

The company owns electric utilities in the U.S. Southeast and Midwest and is one of the country’s biggest coal users. Power utilities account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, which contributes to higher temperatures and sea levels.

Rogers has long called for a “cap-and-trade” program, which would set a mandatory limit on global warming pollution and let companies trade emissions allowances on an open market.

AEP, PPL, Edison

In 2007, Rogers joined CEOs from American Electric Power Co., PPL Corp., and Edison International in Washington for the introduction of a measure offered by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, that would have capped the price of carbon emissions while giving away some credits.

Senator Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, both California Democrats with prime jurisdiction over climate legislation, support Obama’s approach.

Rogers said he could support an auction of as many as 20 percent of the trading permits, with the revenue going toward research and development of low-carbon technologies.

Carbon Tax

An auction of 100 percent of the allowances, as assumed in Obama’s proposed budget, is “nothing more than a carbon tax,” according to Rogers.

“He’s not talking cap and trade, he’s talking cap and tax,” Rogers said.

A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, declined to comment.

Obama submitted a $3.55 trillion budget plan to Congress last week that assumes $78.7 billion in revenue in 2012 from the sale of greenhouse-gas emission permits to polluters.

The administration acknowledges that its plan would boost energy costs for some lower- and middle-income consumers and seeks to use some of the money raised in an auction to offset the increase.

Tax Credit

Obama also wants to use a portion of the funds to finance a tax credit for some workers as well as invest in clean energy initiatives.

The Democratic president’s plan assumes that Congress will pass cap-and-trade legislation by early next year. Rogers and other critics, including Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, say it will be difficult to get lawmakers to support Obama’s version of an emissions trading system.

“It will break down to a regional issue, not a Republican versus Democrat issue,” Rogers said. “It pits the states heavily reliant on coal with those that aren’t.”

Electricity prices in states most dependent on coal-fired power plants, such as Indiana, may go up as much as 40 percent, Rogers said.

Obama will likely have to cut the amount of allowances sold to about 30 percent to 50 percent of the initial total to win support in Congress, according to Abyd Karmali, the London-based head of carbon emissions for Merrill Lynch & Co., the New York investment bank bought by Bank of America Corp.

Karmali, speaking in an interview last week, said the U.S. may reach 100 percent auctioning by about 2020.
 

Mike

Well-known member
This is going to hurt the coal burning states (w/coal power plants) especially.

I see where a Russian firm just bought out a big coal mining company here in the U.S.

I suppose we'll just nationalize the electrical power system in the U.S. to get it under the efficient hand of the Federal Government? :roll:
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Of course it will raise rates.

And it should.

I hope, whatever system is adopted, whether cap and trade or carbon tax, that rates and prices for all fossil-fuel derived energy increase.

That's the point, isn't it?

It's time for fossil-fuel users (myself included, of course) to stop externalizing their costs.

Improperly cheap fossil fuels have been one of the biggest market failures in the history of capitalism.
 

Mike

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Of course it will raise rates.

And it should.

I hope, whatever system is adopted, whether cap and trade or carbon tax, that rates and prices for all fossil-fuel derived energy increase.

That's the point, isn't it?

It's time for fossil-fuel users (myself included, of course) to stop externalizing their costs.

Improperly cheap fossil fuels have been one of the biggest market failures in the history of capitalism.

You are truly lost............and beyond any cognizant discussion.

The scheme is to bring the U.S. standard of living down to third world standards. If there were a plan for another energy source besides fossil fuel, I might see a slow turn in that direction. But there is none at present. :roll:
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Mike said:
badaxemoo said:
Of course it will raise rates.

And it should.

I hope, whatever system is adopted, whether cap and trade or carbon tax, that rates and prices for all fossil-fuel derived energy increase.

That's the point, isn't it?

It's time for fossil-fuel users (myself included, of course) to stop externalizing their costs.

Improperly cheap fossil fuels have been one of the biggest market failures in the history of capitalism.

You are truly lost............and beyond any cognizant discussion.

The scheme is to bring the U.S. standard of living down to third world standards. If there were a plan for another energy source besides fossil fuel, I might see a slow turn in that direction. But there is none at present. :roll:

There will be no plan for a clearner energy system until the market forces push us in that direction.

That's how it works. Government incentives for alternative energy is fine, but it's going to be higher fossil fuel costs that really drive change. And that is how it should be in a market economy.

In general Western Europeans pay significantly more for their fossil fuel use, and per capita, there are quite a few countries that are wealthier than us.

So basically, you aren't making any sense.
 

Mike

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Mike said:
badaxemoo said:
Of course it will raise rates.

And it should.

I hope, whatever system is adopted, whether cap and trade or carbon tax, that rates and prices for all fossil-fuel derived energy increase.

That's the point, isn't it?

It's time for fossil-fuel users (myself included, of course) to stop externalizing their costs.

Improperly cheap fossil fuels have been one of the biggest market failures in the history of capitalism.

You are truly lost............and beyond any cognizant discussion.

The scheme is to bring the U.S. standard of living down to third world standards. If there were a plan for another energy source besides fossil fuel, I might see a slow turn in that direction. But there is none at present. :roll:

There will be no plan for a clearner energy system until the market forces push us in that direction.

That's how it works. Government incentives for alternative energy is fine, but it's going to be higher fossil fuel costs that really drive change. And that is how it should be in a market economy.

In general Western Europeans pay significantly more for their fossil fuel use, and per capita, there are quite a few countries that are wealthier than us.

So basically, you aren't making any sense.

Make sense of this:
Oil prices: Europe threatened with summer of discontent over rising cost of fuel· Spanish and French truckers block border
· Coordinated action raises fears of food shortages
Angelique Chrisafis in Paris and Graham Keeley
Concerns were growing last night over a summer of coordinated European fuel protests after tens of thousands of Spanish truckers blocked roads and the French border, sparking similar action in Portugal and France, while unions across Europe prepared fresh action over the rising price of petrol and diesel.

Spanish hauliers began an indefinite strike, demanding a government aid package to offset the effect of record oil prices. Lorry drivers blocked motorways at the border with France and caused 12-mile tailbacks around Madrid and Barcelona. Long queues formed at Spanish and Portuguese supermarkets after truckers said shops could run out of fresh food in days. Even before the strike began thousands of people formed long lines outside petrol stations and supermarkets.

Supermarket chains Eroski and Carre-four said they had stocked up on food ahead of the strike, but some markets closed yesterday. While lorry drivers picketed distribution centres, the Spanish government said there would be no electricity or petrol shortages. But as many as 15% of Madrid petrol stations were dry by last night, according to a retailers' association.

Main routes to France through Catalonia and the Basque country were blocked, with reports that lorries crossing picket lines were stoned and their windscreens smashed.

French lorry drivers joined the protest to seal off their side of the border. French pickets allowed cars through but around 600 lorries were blocked. Up to 200 French hauliers gridlocked Bordeaux with a go-slow convey that caused nearly 20 miles of tailbacks in and around the city. Outside Lille farmers on tractors staged protests, and around 500 farmers converged on Toulouse for a demonstration.

In Portugal lorry drivers also launched an open-ended strike, and one group threatened to block main roads running south to the Algarve to prevent goods reaching the tourist region. Trucks that broke picket lines had their windscreens smashed.

Jérôme Cordier of Unostra, the French union of small and medium haulage companies, said yesterday's protests marked a new phase to coordinate strikes across Europe for maximum impact, a development that could threaten widespread disruption during the holiday season. "We're taking this up a gear and focusing on the European dimension," he said. France will be hit by open-ended actions next Monday, when three haulage unions join forces for the first time. In Italy lorry drivers are preparing for an all-out strike between June 30 and July 4.

In Britain around 300 lorries are expected to converge on central London on July 2 for TransAction's campaign for European parity on fuel duty and road fuel prices, and the Road Haulage Association could hold its planned mass rally at the same time. Unions for small haulage firms from seven EU states, including France, the Netherlands, Hungary and Slovenia, will meet in Brussels this week to coordinate action, hoping to force EU governments to level out taxes and prices.

Amid expert warnings that the price of oil will remain high for years to come, soaring to perhaps $200 a barrel, a summit of the EU's 27 heads of government next week will reject short-term solutions such as the cap on VAT on fuel proposed by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. But, with surging food and fuel prices dominating their agenda, they will encourage national governments to adopt measures to cushion their impact on the poor and most vulnerable - for a limited period.

A chorus of ministers, diplomats and officials said fiscal measures would send the wrong signals to people that they could carry on consuming as before - and to oil producers that it did not matter how high prices went. "Any subsidies or tax-cuts would simply divert even more money to oil-exporting countries," Joaquín Almunia, the EU economic and monetary affairs commissioner, said.

The Spanish government said it would announce measures tomorrow to ease the strain of fuel price rises, in the hope of reaching a deal with lorry drivers by midweek. The measures included allowing hauliers to make financially favourable changes to their contracts during times of economic hardship. The government would also give €55m (about £43.6m) in aid to drivers who wanted to retire early.

The strikes come after three weeks of fuel protests that have blockaded fishing ports. Some Spanish and Italian fishermen remained in port yesterday, while in France Mediterranean ports reopened as fishermen suspended their strike until a meeting of ministers in Brussels on June 23.

Additional reporting by David Gow, Brussels; David Pallister, London; Tom Kington, Rome.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Mike said:
badaxemoo said:
Mike said:
You are truly lost............and beyond any cognizant discussion.

The scheme is to bring the U.S. standard of living down to third world standards. If there were a plan for another energy source besides fossil fuel, I might see a slow turn in that direction. But there is none at present. :roll:

There will be no plan for a clearner energy system until the market forces push us in that direction.

That's how it works. Government incentives for alternative energy is fine, but it's going to be higher fossil fuel costs that really drive change. And that is how it should be in a market economy.

In general Western Europeans pay significantly more for their fossil fuel use, and per capita, there are quite a few countries that are wealthier than us.

So basically, you aren't making any sense.

Make sense of this:
Oil prices: Europe threatened with summer of discontent over rising cost of fuel· Spanish and French truckers block border
· Coordinated action raises fears of food shortages
Angelique Chrisafis in Paris and Graham Keeley
Concerns were growing last night over a summer of coordinated European fuel protests after tens of thousands of Spanish truckers blocked roads and the French border, sparking similar action in Portugal and France, while unions across Europe prepared fresh action over the rising price of petrol and diesel.

Spanish hauliers began an indefinite strike, demanding a government aid package to offset the effect of record oil prices. Lorry drivers blocked motorways at the border with France and caused 12-mile tailbacks around Madrid and Barcelona. Long queues formed at Spanish and Portuguese supermarkets after truckers said shops could run out of fresh food in days. Even before the strike began thousands of people formed long lines outside petrol stations and supermarkets.

Supermarket chains Eroski and Carre-four said they had stocked up on food ahead of the strike, but some markets closed yesterday. While lorry drivers picketed distribution centres, the Spanish government said there would be no electricity or petrol shortages. But as many as 15% of Madrid petrol stations were dry by last night, according to a retailers' association.

Main routes to France through Catalonia and the Basque country were blocked, with reports that lorries crossing picket lines were stoned and their windscreens smashed.

French lorry drivers joined the protest to seal off their side of the border. French pickets allowed cars through but around 600 lorries were blocked. Up to 200 French hauliers gridlocked Bordeaux with a go-slow convey that caused nearly 20 miles of tailbacks in and around the city. Outside Lille farmers on tractors staged protests, and around 500 farmers converged on Toulouse for a demonstration.

In Portugal lorry drivers also launched an open-ended strike, and one group threatened to block main roads running south to the Algarve to prevent goods reaching the tourist region. Trucks that broke picket lines had their windscreens smashed.

Jérôme Cordier of Unostra, the French union of small and medium haulage companies, said yesterday's protests marked a new phase to coordinate strikes across Europe for maximum impact, a development that could threaten widespread disruption during the holiday season. "We're taking this up a gear and focusing on the European dimension," he said. France will be hit by open-ended actions next Monday, when three haulage unions join forces for the first time. In Italy lorry drivers are preparing for an all-out strike between June 30 and July 4.

In Britain around 300 lorries are expected to converge on central London on July 2 for TransAction's campaign for European parity on fuel duty and road fuel prices, and the Road Haulage Association could hold its planned mass rally at the same time. Unions for small haulage firms from seven EU states, including France, the Netherlands, Hungary and Slovenia, will meet in Brussels this week to coordinate action, hoping to force EU governments to level out taxes and prices.

Amid expert warnings that the price of oil will remain high for years to come, soaring to perhaps $200 a barrel, a summit of the EU's 27 heads of government next week will reject short-term solutions such as the cap on VAT on fuel proposed by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. But, with surging food and fuel prices dominating their agenda, they will encourage national governments to adopt measures to cushion their impact on the poor and most vulnerable - for a limited period.

A chorus of ministers, diplomats and officials said fiscal measures would send the wrong signals to people that they could carry on consuming as before - and to oil producers that it did not matter how high prices went. "Any subsidies or tax-cuts would simply divert even more money to oil-exporting countries," Joaquín Almunia, the EU economic and monetary affairs commissioner, said.

The Spanish government said it would announce measures tomorrow to ease the strain of fuel price rises, in the hope of reaching a deal with lorry drivers by midweek. The measures included allowing hauliers to make financially favourable changes to their contracts during times of economic hardship. The government would also give €55m (about £43.6m) in aid to drivers who wanted to retire early.

The strikes come after three weeks of fuel protests that have blockaded fishing ports. Some Spanish and Italian fishermen remained in port yesterday, while in France Mediterranean ports reopened as fishermen suspended their strike until a meeting of ministers in Brussels on June 23.

Additional reporting by David Gow, Brussels; David Pallister, London; Tom Kington, Rome.

So is your point that governments should drop plans to protect our climate because some truckers might get mad?

Got it.
 

Mike

Well-known member
So is your point that governments should drop plans to protect our climate because some truckers might get mad?

If you could come up with a convincing argument that climate change is due to mankind's activities, I might see a semblance of a point.

But with Zer0's plan......more than just truckers will be mad..........
 

Triangle Bar

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Of course it will raise rates.

And it should.

I hope, whatever system is adopted, whether cap and trade or carbon tax, that rates and prices for all fossil-fuel derived energy increase.

That's the point, isn't it?

It's time for fossil-fuel users (myself included, of course) to stop externalizing their costs.

Improperly cheap fossil fuels have been one of the biggest market failures in the history of capitalism.

It should be clear, from our recent history of skyrocketing oil prices, that high energy costs cripple our economy. When the average Joe has to put an extra $100 in his vehicle/month to go to work & do his normal life's activities; that's $100 he doesn't have to pay his mortgage or buy the consumer goods, that fuels our economy.

The "Producers" of this country, be it farm or factory, feel the real brunt of these high prices. These extra input costs can't be passed on completely; especially for farmers, we get paid on whatever the value of the commodity is when we go to sell it.

You want true alternative energy? Build one nuclear power plant in every state in the union. Reprocess the spent rods & use them again, instead of burying them in a mountain in Nevada. The French do it and if those brown pant wearing surrender monkeys can we could do a better, safer, & more productive job of it.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Triangle Bar said:
Thanks for your response. You make valid points. This will definitely cause short-medium term pain. I worry that some of the pain will be regressive, because it will hit working class people harder - unless measures are put it in to somehow mitigate for this.

It should be clear, from our recent history of skyrocketing oil prices, that high energy costs cripple our economy. When the average Joe has to put an extra $100 in his vehicle/month to go to work & do his normal life's activities; that's $100 he doesn't have to pay his mortgage or buy the consumer goods, that fuels our economy.

Agreed. But the only other alternative seems to be the likely event that our climate goes haywire. I don't know what you think of the climate-change issue, but without that as a starting point, we probably can't see eye-to-eye on this issue

The "Producers" of this country, be it farm or factory, feel the real brunt of these high prices. These extra input costs can't be passed on completely; especially for farmers, we get paid on whatever the value of the commodity is when we go to sell it.

Then is some ways that represents a market failure. Markets need to be structured to take these higher costs into account OR producers need to utilize more efficient means to produce their goods.

The effect of more expensive fuel also depends on the producer. Higher fuel costs hit me. But they hit the industrial-scale CAFO a lot harder. I'll be honest and say that in that regard this could kill two birds with one stone. CAFO agriculture is not currently sustainable in any sense of the word. CAFOs externalize their costs upon society - that is partially why their products are so cheap. That makes the playing field unfairly steep for producers like me. I'd love to see it leveled.


You want true alternative energy? Build one nuclear power plant in every state in the union. Reprocess the spent rods & use them again, instead of burying them in a mountain in Nevada. The French do it and if those brown pant wearing surrender monkeys can we could do a better, safer, & more productive job of it.

I think nuclear power has to be considered, at least as a bridge to a better, cleaner source.
 

Triangle Bar

Well-known member
Badaxemoo, I doubt we agree on the climate change issue. There are approximately an equal number of accredited scientists, on each side, that don't see eye to eye on this issue either. I'm not a scientist, but I can reason with my mind given to me by our creator. Looking at data of warm periods here on Earth and solar flares & Sun spot activity, there looks to be a direct correlation. The Sun right now is in a quiet period, no new solar flares or sun spots in the last 12 months of so. The last time the Sun was quiet like this, for about 18 to 24 months, the Earth entered into what is referred to as the "Little Ice Age".

Frankly I don't think our level of scientific knowledge or our sophistication in computer modeling can account for all the variables to model global climate change. For example, one of the global warming models used to show climate change, uses a Earth model composed of 100% land. You can see that particular model is seriously flawed from it's beginning. Why would they make such a model? The endless variables & chaotic patterns of the oceans & atmosphere are to complex to simulate.

Take the ozone hole. Scientists said mankind was destroying the planet. Now scientist think the ozone hole is natural phenomenon.

"There are more things in Heaven & Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - Shakespeare
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Triangle Bar said:
Badaxemoo, I doubt we agree on the climate change issue. There are approximately an equal number of accredited scientists, on each side, that don't see eye to eye on this issue either. I'm not a scientist, but I can reason with my mind given to me by our creator. Looking at data of warm periods here on Earth and solar flares & Sun spot activity, there looks to be a direct correlation. The Sun right now is in a quiet period, no new solar flares or sun spots in the last 12 months of so. The last time the Sun was quiet like this, for about 18 to 24 months, the Earth entered into what is referred to as the "Little Ice Age".

Frankly I don't think our level of scientific knowledge or our sophistication in computer modeling can account for all the variables to model global climate change. For example, one of the global warming models used to show climate change, uses a Earth model composed of 100% land. You can see that particular model is seriously flawed from it's beginning. Why would they make such a model? The endless variables & chaotic patterns of the oceans & atmosphere are to complex to simulate.

Take the ozone hole. Scientists said mankind was destroying the planet. Now scientist think the ozone hole is natural phenomenon.

"There are more things in Heaven & Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - Shakespeare

In that case it's largely pointless to discuss cap and trade or carbon taxes.

But I appreciate your thoughts.

The only thing I would dispute is that it is a 50/50 split in the scientific community. Climatologists are still arguing about the mechanisms behind climate change, but it's more like a 90-10 split in favor of anthropogenic warming.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Since Carters day- every President has run on a promise of a new energy plan- and getting us off the dependency on fossil fuels and off the dependency on oil cartels and foreign countries that don't like us....

And none have done it...And we end up again and again being held hostage to these cartels (both domestic and foreign) and foreign countries whenever they want to...And the people of the country are tired of it- one of the reasons Obama is in the White House now- and not another Oil man...They wanted "change"- he ran on that- and his energy policy that is now being played out was one of his key campaign issues...

I may not agree with everything in Obamas plan- but at least it is a plan- and like Boone says its way past time that we move forward...Fossil fuels will be around and used thru my lifetime- and probably everyones lifetime- but its time to change direction in our longterm planning-- and again like Boone says, it will take time, and it will be costly....But we have to do it NOW....

Just like Obama got thru telling the Health Care Summit he led off today-- Doing Nothing Is Not an Option...
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Why does Obama have to do all this in first month, why is it if the economy is tanking that he can not put things like this on hold for a year or 2 until the economy picks up?

I think he wants the economy to keep tanking, because the harder the times the easier it is to pass social agenda and get people dependent on Government.

There can be no other explanation on why he keeps on this agenda when it is hurting business and peoples retirements.

Even Clinton realized at a point that so much liberalism was going to hurt him and he pulled back from it and worked with Congress. I am afraid Obama's social dreams are stronger than his own political survival or care for hard working people that are suffering.

I think he will get nationalized health care and pet projects like Global warming passed even if it Bankrupts America!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
80 Million will be hitting the SS roles in the next 10 years. Pension Funds are bust, Stock Market has crashed, they'll be dependent, no doubt.

Maybe they should save some of the money they are planning on spending on Grape genetics?
 

Mike

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
80 Million will be hitting the SS roles in the next 10 years. Pension Funds are bust, Stock Market has crashed, they'll be dependent, no doubt.

Maybe they should save some of the money they are planning on spending on Grape genetics?

I like the Catfish Genetics Study money more. :wink:

But the "Pork" smell is a killer.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
80 Million will be hitting the SS roles in the next 10 years. Pension Funds are bust, Stock Market has crashed, they'll be dependent, no doubt.

Maybe they should save some of the money they are planning on spending on Grape genetics?


Some of the reason the economy is in the place its at is because of no competent energy or health care/health care insurance policy....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
80 Million will be hitting the SS roles in the next 10 years. Pension Funds are bust, Stock Market has crashed, they'll be dependent, no doubt.

Maybe they should save some of the money they are planning on spending on Grape genetics?


Some of the reason the economy is in the place its at is because of no competent energy or health care/health care insurance policy....

EDITED

Changed my mind!
Thought oldtimer had said something right for a change, but that is not the case!
 
Top