[quote=cheesehead;179066]Even the straw-man introductory argument? Or didn't you notice the logic flaw?[/quote]

One can find fault with most non-mathematical arguments; subjective interpretation of protocols and objects in the real world occurs constantly. Nor did i make a blanket statement that one can never institute a carrot & stick on various issues or to pre-emptively pass laws and hope other entities follow.
Cap & trade is just plain wrong *at this point in time and as designed*.
If Obama and his cabal actually were to start BUILDING nuke plants and creating a lot more jobs and a lot more high tech opportunities for US industries, then there would be no problem with passing a law that says 10 years down the road these will be the 'targets' and fines progressing every few years to different sets of numbers. It's not an issue of carrot & stick - it's an issue of putting the freaking cart with bum wheels before the horse. You kill the horse you'll be pulling the load yourself! ...and if everyone is on the cart due to socialism it sure wont' be moving much no matter how many czars are cracking the whip as you get passed by other carts.

They need to absolutely wait until the country is well-healed from recession/depression before instituting anything on that scale and hard-hitting on industries. They need to pump MORE $$ into LED lighting and other productive energy-efficient tech that is on the cusp of mass production. The tortoise can win the race over the hare by being smart...

YES past (US) administrations have dropped the pollution, energy and just about every other ball! That doesn't mean one passes stupid, 'self-inflicting wound' legislation and rushing at windmills like Don Quixote. Rome wasn't built in a day. Make progress without cutting off your nose to spite your face.

How many times have people ripped the last administration about suppressing studies about 'global warming'? and yet the current administration has done the very same thing - 5 months in and just about every govt agency including the EPA is no longer independent - studies being rushed in a matter of weeks and dissenting reports suppressed.

[URL]http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html[/URL] - E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming. [ The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages. ]

We need CAP & Trade like we need a hole in the head as my dad used to say. There just is NOT the scientific evidence that cap & trade is needed- it's a subjective straw-man argument by an administration that wants to please environmentalists and look like it's beating up big-bad wasteful industries.

Thomas

[quote=cheesehead;179080]Since this January, I'm accumulating observations of how the Dems misbehave.[/quote]

I suggest you be a little more critical about the tyrants you (and the other nincompoops of all parties) idolize [U][B][I]before[/I][/B][/U] you give them command of the military, trillions to wreck the economy and the power to take away our privacy.

[quote=__HRB__;179085]I suggest you be a little more critical about the tyrants you (and the other nincompoops of all parties) idolize before you give them command of the military, trillions to wreck the economy and the power to take away our privacy.[/quote]Are you capable of restraining your epithet-throwing?

[quote=xkey;179084]One can find fault with most non-mathematical arguments; subjective interpretation of protocols and objects in the real world occurs constantly.[/quote]You're dodging. I explained a specific rhetorical device you used and why it's logically flawed.

[quote]Nor did i make a blanket statement that one can never institute a carrot & stick on various issues or to pre-emptively pass laws and hope other entities follow.[/quote]So? I never accused you of that. Where's your response to what I actually wrote, not just what you wish I had written so that you could easily ridicule that? Why distract your audience by pretending I made criticisms I actually didn't make? Aren't you up to the task of responding honestly and straightforwardly to what I actually wrote?

[quote]Cap & trade is just plain wrong *at this point in time and as designed*.[/quote]So, just explain why you think so straight out without using flawed rhetorical devices. We'll listen to sound arguments.

[quote]You kill the horse you'll be pulling the load yourself![/quote]Excuse me -- where did you present data to support this accusation?

[quote]They need to absolutely wait until the country is well-healed from recession/depression before instituting anything on that scale and hard-hitting on industries.[/quote]Data to support that?

[quote]How many times have people ripped the last administration about suppressing studies about 'global warming'? and yet the current administration has done the very same thing - 5 months in and just about every govt agency including the EPA is no longer independent - studies being rushed in a matter of weeks and dissenting reports suppressed.[/quote]... and it will be very, very useful to have carefully documented such things accurately.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;179086]Are you capable of restraining your epithet-throwing?[/QUOTE]


Come on, I enjoy it even when it's directed at me. It's kind of like mixing fireworks with a whiskey drinking contest.

[quote=cheesehead;179086]Are you capable of restraining your epithet-throwing?[/quote]

When [I]cheesehead the Tyrannophile[/I] posts, then [I]__HRB__ the Epithetthrower[/I] replies. Do you think you'd be a better person if there were regulation to stop your posts from being read and replied to?

[quote=AES;179090]Come on, I enjoy it even when it's directed at me. It's kind of like mixing fireworks with a whiskey drinking contest.[/quote]

So posts [I]AES the Drunkenfiremaster[/I]!

[quote=cheesehead;179066]Even the straw-man introductory argument? Or didn't you notice the logic flaw?[/quote]
I don't see any logical fallacy. xkey is correct: the economic success of a cap-and-trade system despends entirely on the willingness of other countries to participate in it as well. We can say with near-absolute surety that China will not go for it, and probably nor will most other developing nations. The only other countries that would possibly accept such a system would be the EU countries and possibly a few other countries with rather less significant carbon emissions. What would this mean for the U.S.? It would mean that we, while being on the same trading plane with all the other technologically developed countries of the world, would be at a significant economic disadvantage to them because of the shackles we would impose upon ourselves. Meanwhile those other countries would never adopt such a system--why should they, when they can have a significant advantage over the countries that do enforce cap-and-trade? That is the point that xkey was making, and it does indeed logically follow from his reasoning. This can be proven by way of the Law of Deduction:

Premise: If a country enforces a cap-and-trade system on itself, then energy will cost significantly more for its citizens than if it did not have such a system.

Supporting statement: The availablility and cost of energy is a key factor in a country's economic well-being.

Supporting statement: If country A has to pay significantly more for its energy than country B, then country A will be at a significant economic disadvantage to country B.

Conclusion: Therefore, if a country enforces a cap-and-trade system on itself, then it will be at a significant economic disadvantage to other countries that do not.

This also supports a secondary conclusion that xkey stated: that by attempting to adopt a cap-and-trade system for the U.S., the current administration is indeed driving our country into the ground.

[QUOTE=xkey;179049]I can see China reaping a large benefit from cheap imported American coal and tossing tons of particulates into the air while having a vast cheap supply of electricity to drive their industries further ahead of American ones.[/QUOTE]

The obvious solution would be requiring permits to export coal (etc.) as for burning it.

Now I can't speak for what this would do to the US economy, but that would level the field in that respect.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;179060][QUOTE=AES;178967]IMO, Viable alternative energy sources should exist, before our federal government drives industry toward them.[/QUOTE]Umm ... they do.

Or were you referring to something other than harvesting solar energy (including wind, biomass and hydroelectric) and geothermal energy?[/QUOTE]

Actually those are not nearly viable for the replacement of world (or US, or UK, or EU) energy demand. Covering the US with solar panels probably wouldn't make enough energy to replace coal.

But then again I don't share AES' objection: if lowering greenhouse emissions is important enough to the voters, I don't mind a well-designed system that will push a country to alternate energy sources [i]even though they don't currently exist[/i].

Personally I don't consider greenhouse gas emissions that important, though I do see depletion of nonrenewable resources as quite important, so I could get behind a system like this. I haven't looked this one over closely enough to comment, but I imagine the fundamentals are sound and the execution is quite poor.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;179060]<x>
Umm ... they do.

Or were you referring to something other than harvesting solar energy (including wind, biomass and hydroelectric) and geothermal energy?

</x>[/QUOTE]

Perhaps I should have said profitable instead of viable.

Hydroelectric production is viable and profitable. It's also being used across the country. I do not categorize this energy source an alternative. However, many environmentalists object to the man-made lakes required to generate this energy. (esp. TVA).

If the US had more places like Niagara Falls, where the river traffic exits before being killed, hydroelectric production could be expanded.

Solar energy is not profitable around the smoggy mountains, without a government subsidy. The winds here in the TN valley are hit and miss and then miss again. The only constant is the unbearable humidity.

IMO, at this point in time, the only thing we (mankind) have any real control over... is nuclear energy.

Maybe they should strong-arm a nuclear energy plan thought the house.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;179091]
So posts [I]AES the Drunkenfiremaster[/I]![/QUOTE]

I consider it an upgrade from "Don't lite another one of those in here, you damn drunk injun. I'm calling the police".