Yesterday, president Obama announced emission standards which he said would raise the cost of automobiles by $1300.
While the new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil, they are expected to cost consumers an extra 1,300 US dollars per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. Mr Obama said the fuel cost savings would offset the higher price of vehicles in three years.
His remarkable comment caught my attention, because one of the primary purposes of Obama’s “cap and trade” plan is to massively raise the cost of fuel. There aren’t going to be any fuel cost savings. In fact, Mr. Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle last year that he actually intends to bankrupt coal fired power plants using cap and trade:
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
Two automobile companies are already going bankrupt, so I think we should take Mr. Obama’s words seriously.
I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not any of your taxes.
WASHINGTON – Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits.
Audacity indeed. The assumption seems to be that no one remembers what was said last week.
Now, taking this into account, the cap and trade is designed to be a mechanism for the market to find the most efficent ways to reduce GHG emissions (via the trade the trade aspect). Taxes do not do this, so technically, cap and trade is not a tax.
And technically we will not be paying more for everything that uses electricity in the production process.
Clinton – “It depends what you mean by sex”
Obama – “”It depends what you mean by tax”
Steve Goddard –
I don’t know what the “New Obama Math” is – –
But as for my math skills –
I got an 800 on my SATs and an 800 twice on my GREs in math.
Plus a B.S. in stats – although my advanced degrees are in history.
Now, I realize that I don’t have a PhD in nonlinear systems,
but I have fingers and toes enough to figure out that savings will exceed costs.
For example – If you put in $1000 of insulation in your uninsulated house, you might save $500 per year in heating costs. Both $1000 and $500 are large positive, non-zero numbers, but I can guarantee you that five years down the road (especially with rising utility costs) putting the $1000 into insulating is the wiser option. Is either free? No, but few things in life are – – except for hot air on the blogosphere.
I recognize that many people at this website have an inchoate hatred of all things Obama, but when your right-wing slip is showing as much as it does, you are likely to trip on it.
PS – If you believe that gasoline will stay in the $2.50 range for the next ten years, then it isn’t your math skills I am worried about.
Don’t lose sight; CO2 does not drive temperature,
temperature drives CO2. Think ice cores.
Don’t get lost in secondary and tertiary arguments.
Cap and trade is a scam built on lies, manipulated
data, and an agenda driven ideology.
rob,
I get it now.
The British were just using a mechanism to find the most efficient ways to reduce tea wastage (via the trade the trade aspect). Taxes do not do this, so technically, the tea tax was not a tax.
The founders of the US were just not educated enough to understand that King George III was doing them a favour. Good thing that Obama is much smarter than Washington, Jefferson or any of the other prior occupants of the White House.
John Egan,
Your definition of “right wing” seems to be demanding honesty from government. So be it.
Had Obama said that greater fuel efficiency would “reduce the increase in cost” that would have been accurate . Saying that it would “offset the higher price of vehicles in three years.” was not accurate. His numbers were based on fixed fuel costs, and I am sure you could have used your 800 SAT score to figure that out by yourself.
So does “left wing” mean [snip] – by your definition?
Reply: Let’s try and tone this back please. ~ charles the moderator.
rob (17:01:48),
Let’s back up a minute, your premise appears to be based on false information.
Explain to us, as best you can, exactly what’s wrong with “carbon” [by which you apparently mean carbon dioxide]? Please provide empirical, testable evidence; computer model speculation is inadmissible. This is the central question, isn’t it? Because if CO2 is not harmful, then Cap & Trade is predicated on false information — and honest dealing requires that Cap & Trade must be scuppered.
Next, what is your definition of “marginal”? As in: “…fuel prices may increase marginally”? That’s a weasel word. To most folks “marginal” would mean maybe a penny or two per gallon. There are already bills in committee that would substantially increase the gas tax.
And if Cap & Trade “will only regulate large power producers,” where is 0bama going to get the $trillions he wants, if, as he claims, 95% of taxpayers will get a tax break?
Finally, if you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does it have? Your answer would likely be “five.” The correct answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. You are flat wrong to claim that C&T is not a tax. It is a hefty tax on consumption. People who say it’s not a tax are simply being devious. Saying “…technically, cap and trade is not a tax” fools no one. It is a tax, and a big one. And the way it’s being set up, it is a tax that can not be avoided by anyone.
rob (17:01:48) :
“wow. after scrolling through it appears that most of the poster here and Mr. Watts that the uproar here is based on ignorance of the policy and economics behind it.”
Steven actually is riffing on the conflicting goals of both cap n trade and the newly raised CAFE standards:
“Yesterday, president Obama announced emission standards which he said would raise the cost of automobiles by $1300.
While the new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil, they are expected to cost consumers an extra 1,300 US dollars per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. Mr Obama said the fuel cost savings would offset the higher price of vehicles in three years.
His remarkable comment caught my attention, because one of the primary purposes of Obama’s “cap and trade” plan is to massively raise the cost of fuel. There aren’t going to be any fuel cost savings. In fact, Mr. Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle last year that he actually intends to bankrupt coal fired power plants using cap and trade:
Two automobile companies are already going bankrupt, so I think we should take Mr. Obama’s words seriously.
Last year, candidate Obama also said :
WASHINGTON – Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits.
Audacity indeed. The assumption seems to be that no one remembers what was said last week.”
He’s highlighting the huge contradictions in both policies. Put people out of jobs by raising the cost of new cars…..to lower fuel usage. Screw people now for the (supremely doubtful) benefit of generations far into the future.
Question for the cap-n-trade supporters:
How is the scheme working in Europe?
M. Simon, I’m just pointing out the fact that Goddard’s argument is focused on symantics as opposed to the actual issue. Is this site just a place for arguing the personalities involved in politics, or looking to discuss issues?
If you don’t think GHG emissions should be addressed, that’s one thing, but if you are just attacking on the grounds of politics that’s another.
Wouldn’t dwindling reserves eventually force the market to do what Obama is trying to do ahead of time? It is well known that necessary products sell and sell well. Those with a jump on and a corner of the energy market as reserves are drawn down will do VERY well, which is incentive enough for anyone. So here is where things get suspicious: Anyone with half a brain can figure out how long it will take to reduce CO2 output. Anyone with half a brain can figure out how long it will take to draw down reserves. One appears about as good as the other. Therefore I am left with the conclusion that those that wish cap and trade as a way to reduce CO2 are in it only for the tax revenue, not the CO2 affect. And this from a liberal lefty.
geoff pohanka (10:20:22) :
“Also in Europe, the engines are so small, they must use manual transmissions to get enough torque from them.
Americans also do not like to drive manual transmissions.”
Geoff, the technology has arrived and is in use. My BMW 320d is auotomatic and averages 42mpg (USA measurement) combined city country driving. It also goes like the clappers when I want it to. I guess that’s what you get with a twin turbo common rail diesel built with precision German Engineering know how.
Obama:
So much for his “pledge.” That is why Obama refuses to call a tax a tax. To him it’s a five-legged dog.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
~ President R. Reagan
They’re screwing up a really great system. They want to tax the air. And it’s all based on fakery.
A lot of interesting comments on this thread.
My point is an agreement with those who wrote that GHG cap-and-trade will kill the economy, especially that directed cap-and-trade directed at CO2. California is well along that path via a state law: the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, aka AB 32. There is a cap and trade provision in AB 32, but it is not yet finalized. For a preview of Obama’s global warming law, just see AB 32, which provides the pattern Obama has stated he will follow.
I have written extensively on AB 32 and its implications and consequences on my blog. One such entry regarding the political backlash from angry retirees and wanna-be-retirees is here:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/politicians-beware-of-backlash-from-co2.html
One commenter mentioned acid rain was reduced via a cap and trade program. There is also a cap and trade system in California for NOx and SOx reduction to improve air quality; this is known as RECLAIM. The RECLAIM system dang near put California in a permanent power blackout just a few short years ago. That was a wholly unintended consequence, and the RECLAIM law was suspended for a little while to avert that disaster.
One must wonder what unintended consequences (disasters) await from CO2 cap and trade.
I predict a voter rebellion.
Roads,
You sadi:
Thanks for the excellent explanation of how the marketplace was solving the problem. GM was already retooling for fuel efficient cars, and if Obama’s primary goal was to help them – he would have used the $20 billion to purchase cars, rather than majority ownership in the company. Had he done that, some 40,000 GM franchise employees would not have lost their jobs last week.
“I’m just pointing out the fact that Goddard’s argument is focused on symantics (sic) as opposed to the actual issue.”
That’s pretty funny rob, coming from a guy who avoids discussing the central question: based on exactly what real evidence is CO2 harmful?
SAVE THE CARBON.
SAVE THE CARBON.
SAVE THE CARBON.
(I mean, what have whales ever done for all the vegetation, and by extension, the mammals on planet Earth?)
Pamela Gray,
You’re right that dwindling supplies would have similar (mostly) effect, but the point is that that won’t happen nearly soon enough to reduce GHG emissions any time soon.
rob,
The “actual issue” (and point of this article) is government mandated rising consumer costs, and gross discrepancies in the rhetoric from the primary player.
I propose a solution to limit the foolish government proposals like cap and trade and government run health care. Before any such plan can be imposed on the general public there must be a 5 year trial test period
During this 5 year trial period every Congress member and all the presidential staff and their families must live by the proposed rules without any exceptions. For example, to test the proposed government run health care system, all the Senators, House members and the entire White House staff, including the President cannot use any outside doctors, Hospitals or non authorized medications. Their medical records will be public. If there is rationing, they must abide by the proposed rules and if there is a waiting period they similarly must wait for medical attention. if procedures are not permitted because of age they cannot get the operation or medication. If there are fees because of income they must pay the fees. No exceptions, no private doctors or hospitals
Similarly if the proposal requires small, high gas mileage cars they (including their family members) cannot ride in any other car during the trial period with no exceptions even if it is a taxi, or chauffer driven. If there are carbon taxes, they must be paid from the member’s personal finances, not with government funds.
I firmly believe these rules would put an end the onerous, often proposed government plans to control our life.
ot and feel free to post elsewhere but this is funny
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6294116.ece?print=yes&randnum=1242604714984
Reply: Er…there is an entire Post based on this. (I got to use Er…) ~ charles the moderator
Przemysław Pawełczyk (14:36:23) :
Thanks for the link. great stuff. I just hope we all wake up soon before it’s to late!
Paul Revere
Mike Bryant (08:40:21) :
Way back at the top, Mike quoted:
You Texans are such wimps. 🙂 The New Hampshire Constitution has that in [Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty] but Article 10 is the good one:
rob (17:35:17) : “M. Simon, I’m just pointing out the fact that Goddard’s argument is focused on symantics as opposed to the actual issue.”
By “symantics” I take it you mean “semantics”. “Semantics” means “meanings”, which are indeed the actual issues.
rob,
for simplicity’s sake, present the case as you understand it against CO2/GHG in a brief paragraph so we can all discuss. please?