Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (72360)	6/15/2008 2:50:33 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542914

Bob; See there are issue we can agree on - I wish I had written my response as well as you did. steve

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (72360)	6/15/2008 3:04:34 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542914

Perhaps the discussion [of GW] should focus on policy responses. Not a bad idea at all, Bob.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (72360)	6/15/2008 3:10:37 PM
From: biotech_bull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542914

Whether it is real or not is totally irrelevant as policy is going to put in place That hits the nail on the head. The proponderance of evidence suggests we are dealing with a potential catastrophe. Instead of demanding irrevocable evidence which may well be impossible, the only reasonable option is to proceed with the assumption it's true.... a bit like preparations for a hurricane. Is it possible it maybe a false alarm and evacuation and other safety steps are an unnecssary pain in the ass - sure, but that's really not the point. The debate should really about what policies/solutions are feasible without destroying the economy. The debate about the imperfections of the evidence is a distraction. I think the truly moderate GW alarmists will be delighted if GW is a false alarm

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (72360)	6/15/2008 4:12:06 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542914

How About a Cap-and-Trade Dividend? By ROBERT B. REICH June 4, 2008; Page A21 The Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill is going nowhere. Even in the unlikely event Congress passes it, President Bush has said he will veto the measure, and there aren't nearly enough votes to override. So the real action commences on Jan. 20, 2009, when a new administration takes over. Barack Obama is on record in favor of cap and trade. And so, significantly, is John McCain. In fact, Sen. McCain has been among the strongest backers of the Lieberman-Warner bill. Last October, he said he was "bitterly disappointed" by U.S. inaction on climate change so far. "The Europeans implemented a cap-and-trade system; they stumbled and had their problems, but it is still the right thing to do," he said. So it's a certainty that we'll have a president next year who wants to address global warming by imposing an overall cap on U.S. carbon emissions. The "trade" part of the equation would allow companies finding efficient ways to cut emissions to sell the unused portions of their permits to others. Sen. Obama's proposal is more ambitious than Sen. McCain's in terms of how fast the overall cap would drop. But the biggest difference between Messrs. McCain and Obama is how the permits would be allocated. Mr. McCain's proposal would initially give out most of them for free to the nation's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. This does have some logic to it: after all, as the overall cap tightens each year, the biggest polluters will face the largest challenges in cutting emissions. By contrast, Mr. Obama has proposed allocating the permits through an auction. Under his proposal, every company – large or small – would have to buy the rights to emit greenhouse gases. As a result, the biggest emitters would have to pay the most – thereby providing them with the greatest incentive to cut emissions right from the start. In economic terms, such a carbon auction is the equivalent of a carbon tax, and it makes more sense than a system that allocates permits on the basis of how much greenhouse gas a company or industry already emits. Companies and industries that impose the largest social costs in terms of such emissions should be given the greatest incentives to cut costs immediately. Moreover, carbon auctions invite far less political maneuvering. Setting initial allocations by emissions invites every big corporation and industry to fight for the biggest possible allocation and claim the largest emissions. Despite Mr. McCain's avowed determination to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington, the resulting free-for-all would be a bonanza for K Street. In fact, one likely result would be the issuance of so many permits as to break the overall cap. This is one reason why cap-and-trade hasn't worked very well in Europe so far. Since the European Union adopted the system three years ago, carbon emissions are actually up by several percentage points. The EU gave initial permits away for free, and many companies discovered clever ways to grab even more of them than their previous emissions would warrant. Mr. McCain hasn't completely ruled out a carbon auction. In fact, the Lieberman-Warner bill he supports would auction off some permits – at first a few, and more as time goes on. Over the life of the bill, half of the permits would be handed out for free, half by auction. But carbon auctions raise another problem when it comes to Washington. Revenues from the auctions are likely to be fish bait to industries that might qualify for some of them. Sen. Joe Lieberman estimates that the market value of all permits under his bill would be about $7 trillion by 2050. That sum would go into what he calls a Climate Change Credit Corporation, which, operating outside the budget process, would invest in various plans for developing alternative energy. You can bet that lobbyists for ethanol, nuclear and "clean" coal are already salivating at the prospect of a similar fund emerging from a bill championed by a President McCain or President Obama. That's why it's important that all revenues from carbon auctions be cycled back to citizens. And rather than launch another endless debate over how and to whom – a payroll tax cut for people earning under the median wage, or a cut in capital gains? – it would be well to agree to the simplest possible formula: Every adult citizen should receive an equal share. If the carbon auction yields $150 billion in the first year, for example, each of America's 150 million adult citizens should receive a Treasury check that year of $1,000. Such direct and simple repayments deal with another problem. Although the balance of economic studies suggest that the cost of a cap-and-trade system will be modest, inevitably some costs will be involved and be passed along to consumers who are already walloped by high fuel and food costs and who will be in no mood to accept even modest additional price increases. Hence, the yearly dividend checks will be a welcome offset. Our atmosphere belongs to all of us. It seems only reasonable that corporations should have to pay to use it. The citizens of Alaska and Alberta, Canada, get yearly dividends from the oil companies that take away their natural resources. Why shouldn't the same principle apply when industries use the biggest common resource of all? Mr. Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and former U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, is author of "Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life" (Alfred A. Knopf, 2007). online.wsj.com