Big differences seen compared to EIA estimate.
Documents (link to PDF) obtained from the U.S. Treasury under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute were released on Tuesday.
The U.S. Treasury Department admits that a “cap and trade” system for regulating greenhouse gas emissions could cost every household $1,761 a year. According to the CBS News story, “the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent”.
This comes in way over claims that the EIA says:
The Climate Bill Will Cost You Just 23¢ a Day, EIA Analysis Shows. This works out to $83.95 per year. Big difference.
CEI Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell on the accumulating evidence on the costs of cap and trade:
“The bill’s proponents talk about protecting consumers while intermittently acknowledging that cap-and-trade can only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by dramatically raising the price of energy derived from coal, oil and natural gas.
President Obama said during the campaign last year that ‘under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.’ Dr. Peter Orszag, now head of the White House Office and Management and Budget, testified last year when he was head of the Congressional Budget Office that ‘price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.’”
wattsupwiththat (23:28:46) : Over on Climate Progress….
I wouldn’t expect to see Climate Progress winning Science Blog of the Year.
Jeff Green (20:54:41) : What pulled us out of the recession faster was the government. Had it not been for gov intervention we would be in depression right now. Probably one close to the great depression back in the 30’s.
As someone else has already pointed out: The recession is not over yet. We have not had 2 quarters of economic expansion (we are still dropping, so you have at minimum 1/2 year to go.)
It is beyond the scope of this blog, and way off topic, so I will only mention that what got us INTO the mess in the first place was government. Largely the democrats but with a little republican help. Freddy Mac was a creation of the government. The source of the evil was the “homes for everyone” mantra (see Barney Frank and Chucky Shumer) and the no-redlining law (forget the TLA right now..) that REQUIRED banks to write bad loans (palmed off to Fanny and Freddie). The republicans added a bit by requiring the repeal of Glass-Steagall in exchange for signing onto the expansion of bad home loans for everyone (signed by Pres. Clinton). The rest was just the banking industry trying desperately to find a way to get the junk off their books any way they could in the hope of surviving.
The Fed did the best they could to get other banks to buy up the bad banks. After awhile there’s just no other choice or we will suffer extreme consequences.
Not quite… The repeal of Glass-Steagall left some banks more equal than others. “Investment Banks” could not go to the Fed as lender of last resort, but “regular banks” could. So when Lehman and Bear Stearns had “issues” the Fed could do nothing for them. And guess what: Now there are no longer any “Investment Banks”. They either went bankrupt or committed merger or, in the case of Goldman Sachs, refiled as a federal bank.
I’m glossing over a bit here, as it is rather complex, but the bottom line is that the bank failures and the home mortgage crisis is 100% the creation of the government. Mostly lead by the democrats desire to bugger the banks to buy constituents votes with easy money home loans; abetted by the republicans wanting the repeal of Glass-Steagall. (And seasoned a tiny bit by the accounting rule change requiring “mark to market” that ignored the trader wisdom that “markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent”…)
But we never learn. It is not significantly different from 2000 years ago. This reads like “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum”, but it is real:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/business-panic-of-33ad-things-never-change/
From my point of view which is different from the purpose of this site, co2 is going to do us a whole lot of harm. From that point of view the only entity that can even handle the problem is the government.
The purpose of this site is to explore truth and observe interesting things. I would agree that is different from your point of view. CO2 will cause no harm at all. None. Most of the heating in the temperature record is an artifact of bad thermometers:
http://www.surfacestations.org/
and lousy code:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/agw-and-gistemp-issues/
From another platform Carbon Cap and Trade engages the private sector to find the cheapest most economical way to reduce emissions. It is a market stimulation to solve a very serious problem.
There is no problem, serious or otherwise, to solve. The result of reduction of CO2 emissions will be increased poverty, more environmental damage (a rich people can set aside land for parks; a poor people burns them down to cook the endangered species…), and a reduction of the planet to ruin.
The good news is that Cap and Tirade will not achieve that. It is, as written, a political boondoggle that will damage western democracies industry, enrich a few US “leaders” at the expense of the many, but enrich India, China, Brazil and a couple of other minor players the most. All it will do is transfer power to them. Oh, and Russia will stop playing as soon as the EU stops paying them to play. That happens when the money runs out, which is Real Soon Now.
So the world and capitalism are safe. Even if they will be held in Brazil, and the strange vessels of Russia and “Communist” China…
And since they are not buying into this farce, the end game is self limiting.
FWIW, I decided to learn Brazilian Portuguese rather than Chinese. It’s easier (given that I have a couple of Romance languages already) and I’m more likely to end up retired in Brazil than China anyway. Neighbors are headed out next year to South America. I’m going to visit them “sometime” for “a while”… Mostly just need to pick a country… I already have some Spanish and French, and Belize speaks English; so with Portuguese the whole place kind of opens up. Wife has a friend in Chile… who knows… Need to find where the property rights laws are decent and that’s about it. Then again, the wife has an EU passport so we do have the option of the EU related islands. There is a certain charm in the Caribbean…
But retire here, to a cold economy with tax to death and mandated expenditures? No, not an option.
Gene Nemetz (23:35:14) :
It’s a slow day….
E.M.Smith (23:42:53) :
E. I read your material both here and on chiefio – you write lucidly.
WRT the US, I suspect that you are right. It has a certain inevitability about it. Like a slow motion trainwreck. However, hope is not lost, and nations can be rebuilt.
E.M.Smith (23:42:53) : end up retired in Brazil
You might like how the girls there treat you, even if you retire and move there at 65. It will be better than you can imagine now.
How would everyone feel about a case of beer going up a $1 upon the introduction of C&T? The making and transportation of aluminium cans and glass bottles are energy intensive. Speaking of beer it is evil. The bubbles are CO2.
E.M.Smith (20:06:38) : Do you know what the worlds most efficient engine is? The very best in the whole world? No, not the GE gas turbine (though it is close at about 52%).
It is a Diesel. 54% IIRC.
Looks like I remembered well. From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Power_and_fuel_economy
The MAN S80ME-C7 low speed diesel engines use 155 gram fuel per kWh for an overall energy conversion efficiency of 54.4%, which is the highest conversion of fuel into power by any internal or external combustion engine.[1] Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline (petrol) engines of the same power, resulting in lower fuel consumption. A common margin is 40% more miles per gallon for an efficient turbodiesel.
Might have trouble fitting it into the car, though. Looks like it is about 14 meters long 😉
http://www.manbw.com/engines/TwoStrokeLowSpeedPropMEEngines.asp?model=S80ME-C7
So if you want to reduce oil consumption, just use Diesel engines. It is the best thing you can do to “save the planet” from excess fuel consumption. Want to reduce oil consumption in cars in the USA? Use Diesels and you will reduce car fuel use by about 40%. (Europe is already selling 1/2 Diesels, so they know this already… as do all the trucking companies, and the trains, and the ships, and the military, and even some airplanes use Diesels)
http://www.dieselair.com/
So, forget the hybrid electric and dump the carbon cap: Buy a Diesel truck and go camping 😎
Do it for the planet…
Graeme Rodaughan (00:10:42) :
E.M.Smith (23:42:53) :
E. I read your material both here and on chiefio – you write lucidly.
Thank you! I owe it all to an English Mother who taught me language and an Irish / Amish mix Dad who loved words.
WRT the US, I suspect that you are right. It has a certain inevitability about it. Like a slow motion trainwreck. However, hope is not lost, and nations can be rebuilt.
Yes, but the process will outlast me, I fear. So I’ll need to abandon the field to someone else. My son is looking at overseas as well (though he has his eye on Italy… something about villas and the sea… and …)
Gene Nemetz (00:29:47) :
E.M.Smith (23:42:53) : end up retired in Brazil
You might like how the girls there treat you, even if you retire and move there at 65. It will be better than you can imagine now.
I donno… I’ve got a pretty good imagination 😉
My mechanic is married to a lady from Brazil. They are talking of moving back. (He is Swiss / German mix) He talks fondly of the beaches and 2 lb steaks for a couple of bucks (that is cooked and delivered to your table…)
back to the future (00:45:35) : How would everyone feel about a case of beer going up a $1 upon the introduction of C&T? The making and transportation of aluminium cans and glass bottles are energy intensive. Speaking of beer it is evil. The bubbles are CO2.
It is not a large step from bread riots to beer riots…
BTW, I do my part to keep the planet green. I sequester as much beer derived CO2 as I can. Never let a beer go flat. You are doing it for the planet… and the children… and it helps the polish sausage digest better…
Using the famous words spoken by Darryl Kerrigan from the movie called The Castle…
“Tell ‘im (Mr. Green) ‘es dreamin!”
It seems to me that the US government needs to raise money from Cap and Trade – or from some other source – to get back the money they used to bail out the banks.
OMG, it’s worse than we thought!
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
Clarity2009: “How can one group of people be so selfish yet so self-hating at the exact same time? THAT is a far greater mystery that the climate.”
This mystery has also for long plagued me. As a warmist, I have always been acutely aware of my selfishness, and yet have been puzzled that this trait – so essential to survival in the modern world – has failed to bring me happiness. Until now, I have put this failure down to ‘just one of those things’ and gone about my usual warmist business of destroying civilisation as we know it.
But your question awakened me from my intellectual and moral slumbers, and I decided to investigate the matter, using the power of introspection. Despite some serious avoidance issues and temptations towards rationalisation, I managed to break through the barriers of my mind’s resistance.
The results of my investigations were startling and liberating, if somewhat obvious in retrospect, but such is the way with paradigm-breaking discoveries.
I am, of course, self-hating because I am selfish. Thus, I have identified the causal empirical factor for my ethical shortcomings. This strikes me as an intellectually pleasing and elegant explanation for my lack of fulfillment, and further, demonstrates that sceptics and warmists can work together to craft solutions to the problems of our time.
But what to do about my selfishness? Serendipitously, your President recently gave a speech suggesting practical ways we can help our fellow human beings. I plan to obtain a transcript of his speech for close study, and hope that through diligent application I can change for the better.
“E.M.Smith (23:42:53) :
It is beyond the scope of this blog, and way off topic, so I will only mention that what got us INTO the mess in the first place was government. Largely the democrats but with a little republican help. Freddy Mac was a creation of the government.”
Yes! It started in the 1930’s, and we seem not to learn from the “mistakes”.
“For starters, on your “5-6 degree business as usual temperature rise” claim, have a look at this graph showing the logarithmic response of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
I look at that graph and realize that your grasp of climate science is even worse than your graph of economics. 1) The logarithmic response of CO2 only holds “near” to the current concentration, so plotting the graph down to zero ppm is ridiculous. 2) Your graph implies that the climate system has near-instantaneous equilibration to CO2 changes, which is clearly not true. 3) Your graph implies that there are no other forcing substances in the atmosphere (like aerosols), also clearly not true.
On the economics: “This comes in way over claims that the EIA says” : dividing “tax raised” by “households” is, of course, going to get you a different number than the EIA analysis, which actually looks at the consumption reduction per household – yes, the EIA analysis probably requires some assumptions about how the tax money is used, but it is still going to be a heck of a lot closer to the best estimate of “truth” than your number. Also, historically, U.S. environmental regulations have always come in way under expected costs (see catalytic converters, SO2 cap and trade, etc.)
CALLING E.M. SMITH
I hear you are an economist and I would greatly appreciate your imput on this question.
It is cogent to point out the the increased bio-mass of the earth appears to be the result of a lineal symbiotic relationship with increasing CO2, while the negative effect of any warming from increasing CO2, decreases exponentially. The benefit is, for a time at least, nearly lineal, the negative decreases exponentially. About 75% of the warming expected to happen from a doubling of CO2 should have already occurred. Therefore the benefits of the finale doubling should far outweigh the negative of a litttle additional warming.
Due to the benefit of increased CO2 we (the earth) currently produce a crop yeild that formerly would have required at least 10% more water. What is the economic value of this benefit.? I would love to have, say a Ross Mckitrick (or an E.M. Smith) do a study on this. (-:
Cheers
Some might be interested in the graph found on page twenty of this document.
It is Thursday. Isn’t that the day the evironmentalists flush their toilet? I am sure if the moderates and right wing women stopped shaving legs and other, we could get this cunsumption down. I am not so sure about more people doing less bathing.
On a serious note. The estimate of 1700 per month is low. It looks like socialized energy. The poor people that will have their energy bills paid for, will have no incentive to conserve energy. I watched a woman at the market yesterday buy most of her groceries on food stamps. That means I was buying her groceries and mine. 35 million on food stamps and they represent most of the obesity. They also are great consumers of top branded products.
I love to see Irish traditions held in good staid here at WUWT. Another successful “spanking of the green”. Too bad it is wasted on the “spankee”. No alarm clock could wake that guy up from what is (from a human perspective) a nightmare.
To me, there should be no right and left. The focus should be right or wrong.
Jeff Green,
“For smart grid to work it needs to connect most or all of the grids across the United States. This will allow the renewable energies that are producing to be routed to where they are needed. This would also be a form of peak shaving avoiding co2 emissions and using less energy to get the same job done.”
Jeff, this is what the existing grid does – you really haven’t addressed how a smart grid is going to “take care of the intermittency”. I am very disappointed with your ability to promote our shared vision of the future. The folks on this site may be geeky, but they are not stupid.
“For your wife’s sake, possibly go to gas instead of electricity.”
If I do that then I won’t be able to get hot water from the wind. Oh sure it will address the reliability problem and will no doubt be cheaper, but the future we both crave isn’t about cheap, reliable power. I could get crappy advice like that from any of the brainiacs who frequent this site.
I was wondering if you could help me out with a few gaps in my knowledge concerning the Cap and Trade bill before Congress. When they originally drafted the bill, they were going to raise revenue by auctioning off the carbon permits. Unfortunately, that ran into difficulty because it would cause the pain to occur immediately and in a way that would be readily traceable to Congress, so they decided to give the permits away to get the carbon markets started. Brilliant! That solves the problem, but if they do that, where is the money for the tax cuts (to offset the price increases) or the funding to jump start the green economy coming from. I’m not very smart about high finances, please explain it so that even I can understand.
I implore everyone to read over Jeff Green’s comments. It is clear that Co2 is a problem when you intend to line your own pockets because of it. He stands to gain a great deal if you believe the basis of his argument. I gain nothing (as does anyone who argued against Co2=CAGW). You tell me who is telling the truth. Big hello to Joe Romm and friends from all of us here!! Keep em coming, cause you are doing yourselves a disservice.
A correction. Earlier I’d said:
E.M.Smith (22:45:44) : I’ve got some QTWW (an electric car drive train company that also holds some of Tesla stock IIRC).
It’s a bit more complicated than that. QTWW is part owner of Fiskar Automotive who make an electric car. Fiskar Coachworks did some of the design work on the Tesla… (And when Tesla found out Fiskar was making their own car, the Karma, sued, but has lost the suit…)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisker_Karma#Tesla_lawsuit
QTWW also makes other stuff, like a hybrid Hummer for the army and hydrogen fueling stations sold to places like Norway.
http://www.qtww.com/
Fun company, no idea if it will live or die, but Fiskar has funding from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (where AlGore is a partner) and QTWW owns a large chunk of Fiskar so in a round about way one could say that Al Gore and I both stand to make money from suppressing gasoline consumption and pushing electric cars and hydrogen vehicles.
So AlGore is my partner in business deals… Who knew?
Does that make me a biased warmer ? 😎
Todays news from Canada is Harper meeting with Pelosi and Reid at the White House trying to get the “Buy American” law repealed, at least for Canada. I thought Obama didn’t believe in protectionism? So far, Harper has agreed to present a common front with the US on the environment at the meetings in Copenhagen. This is how Canada gets pushed into this stupidity. Our government is trying to keep us alive but they have to agree to freeze their citizens to do it.
Don’t pick on jeff Green. he doesn’t know any better. I posted the paragraph of $1,761 annual incerease on Joe Romms site yesterday. It was deleted and then Joe (the sock puppet for soros) started a thread a few hours later laughing at Obama’s internal and secret findings. Climate Progress doesn’t allow posts that even have a tone of not supporting punative taxation and redistribution of guilt, wealth, poverty and misery.
Tax breaks for the poor/middle class:
Whenever you hear this associated with *any* bill which is an across-the-board change, it’s simply an attempt at transfer of wealth. Period.
Fundamentally, it is non-productive and creates a greater divide between the classes: the ‘poor’ are allowed to continue to act as they always act – maintaining their current lifestyle, while the rich *have* to get richer. These ‘riches’ are simply used to employ rich lawyers and attorneys who are very good at finding ways for their clients to avoid paying said taxes.
Most people have pointed out that Jeff Green is simply making appeals to authority as an argument, but I will comment that the reason a lot of people ‘believe’ in these alternate energies is that they are clueless about the quantity of energy used by a country such as the US, and have no idea about their own energy consumption.
In addition:
The implication is that ‘taxing’ energy will result in a reduction in individual consumption: How so? We will start turning off our porch lights?
Does such a bill enforce the desires of a majority? (If not, are we imposing a ‘law’ that goes against the majorities desires and needs?)
If It is a majority, why are they waiting to be taxed to start turning off their porch light at night? Rhetorically, are they stupid?
E.M.Smith said: “If you don’t appreciate just how impossible that is, and how much time and money it would take to build 60 Quads of solar and wind, please find an Electrical Engineering major and ask them.”
As an Electrical and Electronic Engineer, I did some napkin math some time ago when ‘everyone’ was bemoaning why Big Oil is conspiratorially blocking the development of solar power: the number of solar panels required is, well, a crap load…in addition, the ‘cost’ will obviously drop on mass production, but then the cost rises as the resources to actually make the quantity of panels dwindles and is much, much harder to extract (along with the associated increase in energy cost).
In addition to that, you how have a lot of solar energy being absorbed by said panels, and not the ground. Now, I’m no expert on that sort of thing, but I can pretty much guarantee it’s going to have *some* kind of environmental impact (just like the fact that extensive geo-thermal energy can cause subsidence and sink holes…)