"Cap and Trade is a Tax. And it’s a Great Big One." John Dingell, Democrat

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


8 thoughts on “"Cap and Trade is a Tax. And it’s a Great Big One." John Dingell, Democrat

  1. Wow… A Democrat that GETS IT..

    Cap and Trade IS a tax. It will affect all income levels.. and beyond. So much for no raising taxes for folks who make less than $250,000 a year.

  2. Kitanis, they all “get it,” but have tried to hide it.

    I’m surprised Dingell let it out since Obama has kept trying to convice people he will actually reduce their tax rates.

  3. Very True Lew..

    Have you noticed lately.. the promised 95% of the American Public that will not have their tax raised has now turned into the 95% of Americans who have received a Tax Cutt?

    They did not receive the Cut but the MSM and the progressives have been touting that since Obama came into office. And there are some fools who Believe them!

  4. Cap and Trade is a regulation. Like all regulations, it has costs, and benefits.

    Other regulations have costs, too — the law against putting lead in gasoline, regulations against SO2 emissions that cause acid rain, regulations requiring you to pay for garbage and sewage disposal instead of dumping them onto your street’s curb. Are these “taxes” as well?

    Most people would say no — they’re fees, covering (some of) the external costs of your own mess.

    Sure, we could have a society where you’re free to dump your sewage into the street. We tried that. It didn’t work — and you should be very, very thankful such regulations were passed.

    Though I’m sure Lew Waters would have been bitching at the time that he would no longer be allowed to dump his poop in the city streets and this new regulation was going to drive him to the poor house.

    Likewise, carbon dioxide has serious negative externalities that need to be addressed.

  5. David said,

    “Cap and Trade is a regulation. Like all regulations, it has costs, and benefits.

    …regulations against SO2 emissions that cause acid rain,…

    Likewise, carbon dioxide has serious negative externalities that need to be addressed.”

    Yes, regulate those acidic SO2 emissions which invariably cool the planet so that you can turn around and regulate CO2 levels which you assert invariably warm the planet. So what do you achieve by spending billions? You regulate, incurring more billions! And to what end, other than expending additional billions?

    The planet warms or cools respective of your penchant for regulation and its “Cost/Benefit” is nothing but the additional cost of regulation.

    CO2 levels have addressed by a myriad of natural control systems which you seem to ignore not the least of which are the carbonate – silicate system, the oceanic system, biosphere, the lithosphere, the cryosphere and the precipitation circulation system.

    The Greenhouse effect, is a natural effect and responsible for heating the planet. I thought you would have realized that by now. Otherwise, we would all be suffering at – 18 degrees centigrade. And thanks to greenhouse gases, including H2O and CO2, the surface temperature would theoretically be some 130 – 140 degrees Fahrenheit, less the impact the lower atmosphere’s precipitation/circulation system (you know that variable in the system your esteemed models doesn’t seem to be able to get right) which mitigates the impact of greenhouse gases, reducing that impact by some 70 – 80 degrees F.

    The only major serious negative externality that needs to be addressed on the Global Warming/Cap and Trade Issue will be the dollars mis-spent on snake oil sales brokers like your hero Al Gore together with others at Kleiner, Perkins and other “Climate Salvation” Consultants dealing with Cap and Trade firms whose predatory profits are hidden under the guise of charity while principals collect exorbitant salaries, speaking and consulting fees, and their future on and off balance sheet capital gains (all so far according to the honorable and benevolent Al Gore to be all contributed to non profit causes, of course, I’m sure after deducting the cost of his Mansion’s monthly electrical bill)!!

    Shades of Enron, which you always seem to conveniently forget. Oh yeah, Enron, a big promoter and sponsor of the Kyoto Global Warming Conference and Protocol and that bastion of charity. Just ask all those widows and orphans who invested in Enron, not to mention the PGE employees whose pensions went up in flames, Kyoto style. Talk about contributing to real global warming.

    So David, why is it you conveniently don’t focus on the addressing the real negative externalities of Cap and Trade??

  6. Cap and Trade is an attempt to apply market principles to a scarce natural resource (the amount of carbon our atmosphere can handle).

    Instead of a “who grabs the resource first” model, it is a “who can pay the most for the resource” model.

    Personally, I hate both of those models; when applied to natural resources.

    This is just a way out, for companies that feel they can boost their public image by claiming they are carbon neutral.
    What carbon neutral really means, is that the company purchased some allotment of natural resource to absorb their carbon.

  7. Eileen

    “Cap and Trade is an attempt to apply market principles to a scarce natural resource (the amount of carbon our atmosphere can handle).”

    I would only disagree with your above statement in the sense that the atmosphere is fragile in its ability to absorb greater levels of CO2.

    Through Geologic history, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been as much as 20 – 25 times more abundant than current levels. The atmosphere can sustain far more than the scarce amount you seem to suggest above without disastrous consequences that some today would seem to assert.

    Climate conditions at those elevated CO2 levels varied from periods of global warming to global cooling and glaciation. The Earth relies upon a number of natural control systems which regulate, among other elements, the amount and location of carbon in the geologic system.

    Companies to survive must adapt to their regulatory environment and with the current Administration’s insistence on validity of AGW and push for “Cap and Trade” companies are either strenuously or subtlely coerced into boosting “their public image by claiming they are carbon neutral.” They “attempt” to do so by directing their marketing resources regardless of whether or not they feel that Cap and Trade is meritorious either from a scientific or economic perspective.

Comments are closed.