Waxman-Markey AKA Cap-and-Trade Bill

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Becker & Posner support a direct carbon tax. As I'm more concerned about resource depletion than carbon release cap & trade suits me better.

A tax can be made to lead to an identical outcome as cap-and-trade, as economically both work by artificially increasing the price of a resource. It is entirely irrelevant whether the price increase is the direct result of a tax or an indirect result of a shortage.

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

The deeper issue of how a legislature can tie the hands of future sessions (in this case, making it harder to foul up the workings of the bill) is still open, of course.

If you're a cheesehead this is irrelevant too, as you can use the following syllogism:

Major Premise: We gotta do something
Minor Premise: Cap-and-trade is something
Conclusion: We gotta do cap-and-trade

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

A tax can be made to lead to an identical outcome as cap-and-trade, as economically both work by artificially increasing the price of a resource. It is entirely irrelevant whether the price increase is the direct result of a tax or an indirect result of a shortage.

I'm pretty familiar with the microeconomics behind this, especially as they're quite simple. (A more complicated question would be setting fees so that a tariff is equivalent to a tax -- possible in theory, difficult in practice.)

But the issue I was addressing was the different practical differences due to the differences (which you suggested would amount to 200+ pages!) between Waxman-Markey as a tax and in its current form.

I'm still interested in implementation issues for Waxman-Markey, which neither cheesehead nor anyone else has addressed. I should see if there's a good summary online -- I'm not about to read the full 300 pages.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

But the issue I was addressing was the different practical differences due to the differences (which you suggested would amount to 200+ pages!) between Waxman-Markey as a tax and in its current form.

Of course you could amend a tax with 300 pages too, so don't hold that number against me. The general problem you are confronted with is that given a clear, transparent policy A and a confusing, opaque policy B, a politician has a strong bias to choose policy B, since it is in the interest of every politician (as an agent of a special interest group), e.g. to be able to put in an amendment, as keeping his special interest group happy is the source of his power (and he can pay his bills).

Therefore, the theory of political economics tell us that ceteris paribus a political solution will more likely be an inferior practical solution. In this case, if there was a choice between cap-and-trade and a tax, the tax is the more likely candidate to have been the better practical solution.

[cheesehead]

HRB,

For a while recently I took you off my ignore list because it seemed that your postings in some threads had become more reasonable.

In this thread, my post #26 was a reply to a single sentence in CRGreathouse's post #20. It concerned whether or not covering the US with solar panels would generate enough energy to replace that now supplied by coal. Your post #28 ignored that, instead going off on a straw-horse tangent about things I never said.

In post #31, I tried to clue you in. You didn't take the clue, but instead chose to make a further negative comment in #33.

Now you're back on my ignore list because you have re-confirmed that it was a waste of my time to read what you post. I'll let others, who haven't put you on their ignore lists yet, quote and reply to you.

- - -

For those not yet familiar with their ignore lists:

Go to your own Control Panel (click on "User CP" at the top left of any page) and click on "Edit Ignore List" on the left. You can then specify which other users' postings you prefer not to see routinely. You'll still be able to see where that user has posted (just not the text), and can read those posts' text, when you choose to do so, by clicking on "View Post" at upper right of each non-displayed post.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

[...blah, blah, blah...]

Poor fella. Living with a semantic dissemination impediment must be really tough.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I'm not familiar with the details of Waxman-Markey or McCain's plan. cheesehead, would you be so kind as to answer your own question?

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I'm still interested in implementation issues for Waxman-Markey, which neither cheesehead nor anyone else has addressed.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here.

I am not an advocate for Waxman-Markey, nor have I ever claimed great familiarity with it. (So, no, I can't answer my own question).

I do advocate cap-and-trade, in general, as one of a variety of measures I favor taking to change our ways of producing and using energy. (The September 2006 issue of Scientific American magazine, titled on its cover, "Energy's Future - Beyond Carbon", has a lot I agree with, especially the article about "wedges" that add up to the carbon reduction needed to level off global warming. Cap-and-trade is a way of accomplishing one of the "wedges".)

I'm also in favor of changing our habits of building design and construction to make energy conservation a much higher priority in that area than it has traditionally been.

I've never thought or said that Waxman-Markey was a wonderful way of accomplishing either ... but it is certainly better than nothing, which is what the GOP has seemed to advocate up until now.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Actually those are not nearly viable for the replacement of world (or US, or UK, or EU) energy demand.

... and I haven't claimed that they are. What I'm arguing is that we should vigorously proceed to research, develop, and expand all types of non-carbon energy production -- to supplement carbon-energy sources as much and as soon as possible -- leading eventually in a few decades to being able not only to get all our energy increases from them, but also to start then replacing net carbon-energy production.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by xkey

One can find fault with most non-mathematical arguments;

Thomas,

I'm willing to be convinced that Waxman-Markey should be opposed, if its opponents can present sound arguments.

But when your arguments have Swiss-cheese^* logic, they don't convince me.

Originally Posted by xkey

Meh I'll poke my head out of genetic algorithms long enough to question your "logic" as you seem to subjectively question others logic.

When, instead of correcting your logic holes and replacing your faulty arguments with sounder ones, you treat this as a rhetorical contest by attacking my critique instead of heeding it, I (and, I suspect, other readers) am not any more convinced that you are correct about Waxman-Markey.

How about correcting the flaws I pointed out, to show us that you really do have a good argument against Waxman-Markey? Which is more important to you: scoring rhetoric points, or convincing us that there's a better way than Waxman-Markey (not just complaining about Waxman-Markey, but showing us a superior alternative)?

- - -

As I said, I'm not an advocate for Waxman-Markey (except in the absence of anything better), but I am an opponent of sloppy logic and rhetorical trickery.

- - -

^* - Swiss cheese: a suitable model for fashionable headwear in certain regions, but not a proper model for logical arguments.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Do you tax wood? ....
Give us more details of your carbon tax plan.

Originally Posted by __HRB__

First thing we have to do,

Secondly, we have to take our WMDs and wipe out rogue nations that commit treason against the planet,

Then you can impose any tax you like.

You failed to answer the question. What would you set up to tax as carbon?

Your WMD plan might cause more harm than good. Also, why kill non-soldiers wholesale for the "crimes" that you aledge that companies and politicians committ????

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

As I said, I'm not an advocate for Waxman-Markey (except in the absence of anything better), but I am an opponent of sloppy logic and rhetorical trickery.

...which is a prime example of sloppy logic and rhetorical trickery.

Scientific dishonesty can be added to the list, as science requires proof that Waxman-Markey is significantly better than the null-hypothesis, i.e. doing nothing, and not vice versa.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Now you're back on my ignore list, because you have re-confirmed that it was a waste of my time to read what you post.[...]

The last resort of the dishonest fool: self-deception through ignorance.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

You failed to answer the question. What would you set up to tax as carbon?

Fossil fuels.

Edit:

Numerically: $2.00/Kg or 1% above the weighted average of tax of competing industrialized nations. Whatever is lower. The 1% is negligible in itself, but is a signal of cooperation to competing countries, which would solve the game-theoretic problem. The $2.00 is a ceiling to prevent the tax from going to infinity.

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Your WMD plan might cause more harm than good. Also, why kill non-soldiers wholesale for the "crimes" that you aledge that companies and politicians committ????

Might??? If you think that's even an option, <insert name of supernatural delusion here> help us.

Paul Krugman is the one doing the allegations. Considering it a crime for people to relocate to places, which would allow them to live their life the way they want to, is a direct consequence of that fvcking sh1thead's opinion.