Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Cap-and-Trade Vote Underway Over
Watch the vote live here, while you read from Reason's extensive climate change archive.
You'll probably need a beer, too.
UPDATE: House passes the bill, 219-212, despite the fact that no one on the planet has actually read it. Consider picking up some more beer and drinking steadily until the Senate vote, morosely re-reading Reason's extensive climate change archive until it's all over.
UPDATE II: Right after the vote, D.C. was hit by a huge freakish hailstorm. Twitter canvas suggests that supporters see it as evidence that this climate change thing is serious. Opponents see it as evidence of God's displeasure with the vote. Omens can be so tricky sometimes.
BeesInTheBrain|6.26.09 @ 7:14PM|#
Better drink up before the CO2 emissions from producing beer are taxed.
WTF|6.26.09 @ 7:21PM|#
Obama Hulas as America Burns:
The White House fully engaged in the whipping effort Thursday,
which kicked off in the morning when White House senior adviser
David Axelrod pitched the measure to the Democratic Caucus.
President Barack Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and
other senior administration officials worked the phones throughout
the day. And the sales job was expected to carry into the evening,
when Obama hosted lawmakers at the White House for a luau-themed
Congressional picnic.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/36308-1.html
Xeones|6.26.09 @ 7:27PM|#
FUCK. Later dudes, i need to go apologize to my kid for what 219 pieces of shit just did to her future.
|6.26.09 @ 7:32PM|#
Bullshit of the highest order. I really hope that the Senate kills this piece of crap.
hammeredHead|6.26.09 @ 7:32PM|#
What the hell is wrong with these people. They are now thankiong
each other for destroy the US. New Zealand is looking better every
day.
For their next vote congress will spend trillions for the
construction of temples for the worship of atten to reduce the time
the sun spends in the sky.
Rich|6.26.09 @ 7:38PM|#
Xeones, it's gonna be OK. Just have your kid write a barely-comprehensible letter to congress complaining about how bad her country is.
|6.26.09 @ 7:42PM|#
syd - 44 dems voted against it, which says a lot more.
if this passes the senate i'm going to start idling my car in the
driveway for hours, waiting for one of my socially conscious
neighbors to call the epa on me so they can raid me and do an
energy audit. man i feel like just became a scientologist by
accident.
Hank|6.26.09 @ 7:44PM|#
Detroit councilwoman pleads guilty in bribery case:
DETROIT - City Council member Monica Conyers, the wife of powerful
and popular Democratic congressman John Conyers, pleaded guilty
Friday to accepting cash bribes in exchange for supporting a sludge
contract with a Houston company.
Conyers, a political unknown who won her council seat in 2005
largely on her husband's name, admitted in federal court to a
single count of conspiracy to commit bribery, responding quietly to
questions from Judge Avern Cohn.
She faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine when she's
sentenced.
The fiery 44-year-old Conyers left court without commenting.
Bye bye!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_us/us_detroit_corruption_12
Kyle Jordan|6.26.09 @ 7:45PM|#
Looking like it's time to get serious about dropping off the
grid and walking away from the rest of the shaved apes.
There's some bad juju in the air. And I'm not talking about
CO2.
Tricky Prickears|6.26.09 @ 7:46PM|#
Better drink up before the CO2 emissions from producing beer
are taxed.
Since when do they need a reason like CO2 emissions to
raise taxes on liquor and beer?
hammeredHead|6.26.09 @ 7:49PM|#
Now a congresscritter is talking about Albanian Americans. Who gives a fuck about Albania Americans. What no balls to keep denouncing the house for their stupidity.
Gorgeous Gus the Wonder Dog|6.26.09 @ 7:59PM|#
"Conyers, a political unknown who won her council seat in 2005
largely on her husband's name, admitted in federal court to a
single count of conspiracy to commit bribery, responding quietly to
questions from Judge Avern Cohn."
I wonder where she learned her bribery skills?
JW Gacy|6.26.09 @ 8:13PM|#
You know what this means. We've all let Chris Kelly down. The Reason YouTube brigade has failed again.
|6.26.09 @ 8:14PM|#
"I wonder where she learned her bribery skills?"
Gus, skill is when you succeed, in other words, don't get caught or
at the very least avoid the consequences. She clearly doesn't have
the skill we would expect from a member of Congress.
Gorgeous Gus the Wonder Dog|6.26.09 @ 8:18PM|#
"Gus, skill is when you succeed, in other words, don't get
caught or at the very least avoid the consequences. She clearly
doesn't have the skill we would expect from a member of
Congress."
And I don't do the laundry as well as my wife does. But she's okay
with that. She grew up in a family-owned laundry. I'd just suck at
it.
hmm|6.26.09 @ 8:18PM|#
Time to start the strategy to game the system. You know. The
same way it is gamed every where else.
You see this is actually stimulus in disguise. The ability of large
production facilities to game the system and generate income will
help keep worthless shit turds of companies alive.
I mean it's good for everyone, ya that's it.
Bruce Majors|6.26.09 @ 8:19PM|#
Bono (202) 225-5330
Castle (202)225-4165
Kirk (202)225-4835
Lance(202)225-5361
Lobiondo(202)225-6572... Read More
McHugh(2020)225-4611
Reichert(202)225-7761
Smith(202)255-3765
Call them all and tell them they will be voted out in 2010.
Bruce Majors|6.26.09 @ 8:20PM|#
It's a Value Added Tax. But not honestly, openly, transparently debated as such. But since energy is used in almost any economic transaction or process, it is simply a national sales tax.
Fist of Etiquette|6.26.09 @ 8:21PM|#
Yeah, because hail never fucking happened before. Good we're basing life altering legislation on anecdotal science, though.
|6.26.09 @ 8:23PM|#
Fucking Dave Reichert. He should have stuck to being an incompetent backwater Sheriff letting mass murderers go free.
The Angry Optimist|6.26.09 @ 8:27PM|#
wait, it was 219-212...and three non-voting. So who's the 435th
member missing?
woah, and why weren't Jeff Flake and John
Sullivan there to vote against this?
and *sigh*, not that I was going to vote for her anyways, but my
congresswoman voted for this. time to dust off the campaign
shoes.
db|6.26.09 @ 8:30PM|#
It would cost me about $92,000 to install a wind turbine capable of supplying my home energy needs on my property. Looks like I'm not going off the grid anytime soon. To finance that at ~8% for 30 years would be $675 a month. My current electric bill (from OMG FOSSIL FUELS) is about $200 a month averaged year round.
|6.26.09 @ 8:35PM|#
219 speaks of pretty serious whipping. It would've passed
regardless. Almost any of the 44 Democrats voting against could
have been forced by the leadership to vote Aye if necessary, but
the leadership allowed as many as they could to vote now to help
re-election chances.
Doesn't speak too well for the Senate chances, but we'll see.
Kyle Jordan|6.26.09 @ 8:38PM|#
"UPDATE II: Right after the vote, D.C. was hit by a huge
freakish hailstorm. Twitter canvas suggests that supporters see it
as evidence that this climate change thing is serious. Opponents
see it as evidence of God's displeasure with the vote. Omens can be
so tricky sometimes."
Yep. Fucktards the whole lot of them.
|6.26.09 @ 8:39PM|#
There's enough loopholes in this thing that it won't do much for
the climate or cost a lot by 2030. Most of the cuts are projected
for the 2031-2050 timeframe, and they'll probably be relaxed by
then.
Does look like it'll shift money around from some taxpayers,
consumers, and companies to others, create a giant bureaucracy, and
a bunch of other crap, though.
db|6.26.09 @ 8:42PM|#
...and wipe out a bunch of good union jobs generating
electricity with OMG FOSSIL FUELS!
Disclaimer--I currently work in a non-union engineering job
generating electricity with
OMG FOSSIL FUELS!
(I'm in flue gas desulfurization, if anyone's looking for a
chemical engineer for a nice warm, gun-loving,
non-overwhelmingly-god-fearing climate.)
|6.26.09 @ 8:42PM|#
And of course since Obama announced the closure of Gitmo before
having enough of a plan to know what to do with them (I assume that
the plan was to get approval to close it first, then decide where
later so that people who didn't like the newly chosen plan wouldn't
balk at first), he's now stuck with indefinite detention.
But do not panic!
The White House is drafting a new executive order to allow
indefinite detention.
So no problem.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.26.09 @ 8:45PM|#
Which is primarily what it was intended to do in the first
place. Give the politicians "leverage" to play with.
Fuck.
|6.26.09 @ 8:48PM|#
Yes, but it also means that predictions of total economic doom are going to end up looking a little ridiculous. It's going to be a process of increasing government direction of the economy that will slow growth and enlarge the power of the public sector compared to the private sector, but they'll tweak it in order to make sure that the pain (and, at the same time, any environmental benefits) doesn't happen too quickly.
Hal Turner|6.26.09 @ 9:40PM|#
Let me be the first to say this plainly: These 219
representatives deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish
the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for
millions.
(And oh, yeah: Their addresses are all House of Representatives,
Washington DC 20515. Their pictures can be found on their websites.
Just check www.house.gov.)
mark|6.26.09 @ 9:48PM|#
He read the whole thing and then voted for it! You know who I'm talking about.
Rich|6.26.09 @ 10:10PM|#
> "... they'll tweak it in order to make sure that the pain
... doesn't happen too quickly."
Really think they have *that* much contol?
"We cannot be afraid of the future." -- Barack Obama, 25 July
2009
|6.26.09 @ 10:25PM|#
Anyone else thinking of voting a straight Democratic ticket for the next couple of decades, just so we can get to ground zero quicker? Throwing more gasoline on a burning house so that we can get around to rebuilding it that much sooner?
|6.26.09 @ 10:41PM|#
Anyone else thinking of voting a straight Democratic ticket
for the next couple of decades, just so we can get to ground zero
quicker? Throwing more gasoline on a burning house so that we can
get around to rebuilding it that much sooner?
Ummm, not if it's MY house. Seems smarter to, you know, punish
miscreants rather than reward them.
Super Fund Site|6.26.09 @ 10:44PM|#
"Anyone else thinking of voting a straight Democratic ticket for
the next couple of decades, just so we can get to ground zero
quicker? Throwing more gasoline on a burning house so that we can
get around to rebuilding it that much sooner?"
No.
Super Fund Site|6.26.09 @ 10:46PM|#
Allow me to elaborate. We are not burning down the house (props to Talking Heads), we are poisoning the well. Or more starkly, when Lady Liberty passes...
|6.26.09 @ 10:47PM|#
woah, and why weren't Jeff Flake and John Sullivan there to
vote against this?
TAO, not showing up to vote on final reading has the same effect as
a "no" vote. 219-212, with 218 "yes" votes needed to pass it,
regardless of how many people showed up.
Though you'd think these two would show up to make the point that
they opposed this.
|6.26.09 @ 10:48PM|#
So the solution to America's problem is to insert into all
future fascist bills the language that any politician who votes for
legislation he or she hasn't read will be instantly executed with a
pistol shot to the back of the head.
Maybe then they'd read it first.
Mike|6.26.09 @ 10:50PM|#
Thanks a lot, Democrats. This will really help pull us out of our recession.
|6.26.09 @ 10:50PM|#
OK, time to go get a beer.
Not that anyone here violated the drinking rules. But 219 people
5,000 or so miles away did.
|6.26.09 @ 10:51PM|#
Question: will they need 60 votes in the Senate? Or will they pull that reconcilation shite or whatever they call it and just need 51?
|6.26.09 @ 11:12PM|#
Any dumbass politician who voted for this, is politically doomed. Many Americans are sick to death of the left wing scum sucking maggots who are destroying our economy, our freedom and our futures. Those bastards are going to be on the streets next year. I'm getting their names and will put my money behind decent person running against the trash in office supporting this. A pox on their homes and a curse on their families. They're the typical tyrant's who have no reguard for freedom but their only goal is to enrich themselves at the cost of the tax payer.
Country Boy|6.26.09 @ 11:15PM|#
Mike the moron only thinks it'll pull us out of a recession. He's so stupid he doesn't realize taxes will deepen the recession. If brains was dynamite he doesn't have enough to blow up a knats ass.
country boy|6.26.09 @ 11:19PM|#
Good idea Mark Twain, bad thing is the gestapo is in charge now. Comrade O will continue to shove crap down the moron's throat and tell them it's pudding and they'll swallow it and thank him. Decent people know him for the Marxist/Socialist he is. Hopefully Texas will secede and I can move to Texas.
B|6.26.09 @ 11:23PM|#
"Question: will they need 60 votes in the Senate? Or will they
pull that reconcilation shite or whatever they call it and just
need 51?'
They can't use reconciliation for this. A while back 67 Senators
voted for an amendment that prohibits the use of reconciliation for
this bill. That is why it doesn't have a chance in hell of passing
the Senate.
Here Here|6.27.09 @ 12:12AM|#
It's Friday night, and these bastards will not ruin my buzz. I will continue to rape their system and exploit their horrible decisions. Peace be with those who do not benefit/exploit.
|6.27.09 @ 1:34AM|#
The bright side: when the effects of this bill show up in the
economy, the democrats might just have pissed away their majority
in both houses. That would mean the remainder of the Obama
administration would be a period of deadlock, which would allow the
market to adjust to and work around the government, as it did
during the Clinton administration.
Then, we'll have a recovery, which Obama's supporters will credit
to him.
-jcr
|6.27.09 @ 1:37AM|#
My current electric bill (from OMG FOSSIL FUELS) is about
$200 a month averaged year round.
What? You mean to tell me that the math doesn't work? No way!
-jcr
|6.27.09 @ 1:44AM|#
Mark Levin was saying that this bill does a lot more than cap and trade. It makes a proposed California state law, one that would require a 30% (raised to 50% in 2012) improvement in home energy efficiency on all new homes, mandatory nationally. It would give, for the first time, federal jurisdiction over local building codes. And it would allow "concensus", not Congressional action, to further modify these rules in the future. I shudder to think what a house would cost under these rules. So much for a housing recovery.
|6.27.09 @ 1:45AM|#
Really think they have *that* much contol?
Looking at the scoring, and the levels of the caps, and the permit
giveaways? Yes. For the first few years, it's a political shell
game of stealing money from one person to give to another, but it
creates both winners and losers.
The real emissions cuts, which would result in noticeable aggregate
pain for nearly everyone, are postponed until after 2030 (allowing
the Democrats to talk about how it only costs the average family $X
in 2030). It's an open question whether they'll actually
happen.
In the short term, we're getting few real emissions cuts but a lot
of political games that will create some winners and some losers,
but all dependent on the government. Since I haven't read the 1500
pages yet, I can't tell exactly who all the winners and losers are,
but I'm sure that the newest 300 pages inserted at Chairman
Peterson's (D-MN) request mean that the ethanol barons are getting
theirs.
|6.27.09 @ 1:47AM|#
It would give, for the first time, federal jurisdiction over
local building codes.
Well, that's an opening for a legal challenge, then. Local building
codes are one more thing that the constitution doesn't give the
federal government any power to regulate.
-jcr
|6.27.09 @ 1:50AM|#
Don't get me wrong, all the government intervention in the economy will certainly be bad. But I think it would actually be easier to argue against this bill if it were a straightforward tax that would hurt the economy more directly (though that would be more environmentally meaningful, too). This is going to create all sorts of parasites hoping to get government money, or at the very least even companies and people that otherwise wouldn't want to participate will feel like they have to be part of the process or else really lose out.
B|6.27.09 @ 4:59AM|#
"But I think it would actually be easier to argue against this
bill if it were a straightforward tax that would hurt the economy
more directly."
Don't worry, you will be seeing those "straightforward" taxes
proposed during the healthcare debates.
Tricky Prickears|6.27.09 @ 5:55AM|#
for the first time, federal jurisdiction over local building
codes.
Maybe for residential, but not commercial. See
Americans With Disabilities Act.
Tricky Prickears|6.27.09 @ 6:20AM|#
Wow. I really didn't think LoBiondo had the balls to go against the Republican Party. He's been there quite a while, over 20 years, but always seems to vote along party lines. He represents NJ-01, which is extreme South Jersey. A lot of farms, wooded area, and, of course, the Jersey Shore area including AC. So, he's a proponent of protecting these areas. But he supported offshore drilling. Anyway maybe this had something to do with his decision. Check out the live webcam.
Chad|6.27.09 @ 6:23AM|#
db | June 26, 2009, 8:30pm | #
It would cost me about $92,000 to install a wind turbine capable of
supplying my home energy needs on my property. Looks like I'm not
going off the grid anytime soon. To finance that at ~8% for 30
years would be $675 a month. My current electric bill (from OMG
FOSSIL FUELS) is about $200 a month averaged year round.
That's why you pay some large electric company to install a much
bigger, much more efficient turbine in some very windy place, and
then send the juice to you over a high voltage line.
And guess what...electricity prices are going to up substantially
regardless of cap-and-trade. Do you really think your bill would
stay at $200 for 30 years?
Does the math look anywhere near as bad anymore?
|6.27.09 @ 6:35AM|#
Abama is just a colred man who's out of his league.The networks
are all in his pocket.If he was a white man they would be all over
him,instead they are all woreshipping him because they are all
afraid to be called raceist.
Abama is just a radical socialist.The country that have national
healthcare already are all telling abama they he shouldn't go that
way because it wont work.Instead he thinks that he's the savior of
the world and he's never wrong.
Abama is a raceist who hates what america stands for.For
exsample,during the presedent election they had the black pathers
at the door of voteing booths with clubs telling white people they
better vote for abama and now the whites are going to see what's
it's like to be slave.The D.A filed federal charges on them then
Abama dropped them without even hearing from the D.A.he fired
another one because he was going after a governor who's a friend of
his and accorn.
They even Democratic congressman John Conyers who's supose to be
fair ahead of the investigation commetee.He said that they wasn't
going to investigate accorn because nothin is wrong.Now here's a
man who didn't know or knew that his wife Council member Monica
Conyers was taking bribes.He should be taking off the commetee.
|6.27.09 @ 6:40AM|#
Abama is pushing for th trade and act bill because he wont the
goverement to own us like russia.The reason that democrates are all
for this especially the speaker of the house is because they have a
lot of shares in clean energy companies that their stock would
explode if this bill is passed.Gore on the other had has a buisness
that will make him a billionnare if this bill is passed.
The fact is that abama is lieing.the average electric bill will go
up moree then 3000 a year if this bill is passed not pennies like
Abama claims.Abama is out of his league and the speaker of the
house is doing anything she wonts to do.
Tricky Prickears|6.27.09 @ 6:41AM|#
Is this a joke? Bad spellin, bad grammer. Better go back to ESL class.
Tricky Prickears|6.27.09 @ 6:56AM|#
It would cost me about $92,000 to install a wind turbine
capable of supplying my home energy needs on my property. Looks
like I'm not going off the grid anytime soon. To finance that at
~8% for 30 years would be $675 a month. My current electric bill
(from OMG FOSSIL FUELS) is about $200 a month averaged year
round.
92 sounds high to me. Did you get three quotes? Drop the
highest and the lowest, and take the middle? Anyway, you wouldn't
be going off the grid, even if you had enough to meet all of your
needs, unless you had a hydrogen storage system (which is extremely
expensive). You would stay on the grid and have a reverse meter
installed. If you needed extra energy, you draw it from the grid.
If you have excess, you supply it into the grid. Did you figure in
any excess energy you might have that would be sold back to the
energy company? Some states have laws that say, the electric
company must pay you for your excess the same price they charge
you.
KingShamus|6.27.09 @ 7:15AM|#
"And guess what...electricity prices are going to up
substantially regardless of cap-and-trade. Do you really think your
bill would stay at $200 for 30 years?"
-------------------
Inflation =/= A really bad 'energy' bill.
I can live with a relatively slow, more or less natural process
that raises my electric bill over the course of time. I have a much
harder time with cap and trade, which will very quickly and very
directly raise prices on every damn thing I buy. Add to that the
fact that the bill will do nothing to help the environment. I can
see why a lot of people would be annoyed by Waxman-Markey.
Tricky Prickears|6.27.09 @ 7:52AM|#
which will very quickly and very directly raise prices on
every damn thing I buy.
A sharp increase in the cost
of oil...
I've been thinking about this. I don't quite understand "cap and
trade" (I don't think anybody truly does) but look at it this
way...
Compare a floating tax on fossils to a cap and trade system. The
C&T system will allow companies to buy and sell emissions. The
government only "issues" emission permits. This allows for the free
trade of emissions. A direct tax on fossils (and subsidies to
renewables), would allow the government to collect taxes and
redistribute as they see fit. Or just take the taxes and spend
somewhere else (sort of like the way my state raids the state
worker's pension fund).
I guess my question is... would C&T create an entirely new
commodity, which will be bought and sold by brokers? I hate to see
government intervention either way, but the renewable sector needs
a hand up (not a hand out) to initially compete with fossils, so
they can be phased out over time. And, it seems C&T deals more
with generation (coal v. wind/solar), and not as much with biofuels
(something we could actually export). I would rather see us export
something "concrete" rather than a piece of paper (assuming they
can be traded internationally).
Tricky Prickears|6.27.09 @ 8:07AM|#
Right after the vote, D.C. was hit by a huge freakish
hailstorm. Twitter canvas suggests that supporters see it as
evidence that this climate change thing is serious. Opponents see
it as evidence of God's displeasure with the vote. Omens can be so
tricky sometimes.
As soon as you mention God...
Rich|6.27.09 @ 9:01AM|#
So when's the ABC special on *this* monstrosity? The more, um, exposure the more people who will get a clue.
|6.27.09 @ 9:29AM|#
Jeeez I hate to be a dick. No, wait, I don't actually. Has
anyone here actually read the damn bill? Or are you all lathered up
with fear and loathing over yet another case of ignorance?
I mean, I get it that most people here don't like Obama. Do you
guys really really believe that the man is out to destroy america
just because he can? At some point ya gotta get over yourselves and
realize that just because something isn't done your way doesn't
mean that it's wrong.
|6.27.09 @ 10:01AM|#
Art-P.O.G., it's always a good stance with our congress. I have
some concerns with the unforeseen results of the bill, what little
I know of it. Somebody mentioned upthread the new
commodities/futures trading of the credits. That is a concern of
mine considering how the mortgage backed securities turned out. I
have concerns about the effects on businesses here if this forces a
net increase in costs. Will they be competitive in the world
market? Will they move elsewhere? Will the gubmint decide the
businesses now need bigass subsidies to remain competitive?
I voted for Obama. I like the general direction he is pointing the
country. Some of his methods I find a tad curious.
g4m3th30ry|6.27.09 @ 10:05AM|#
Brotherben -
I didn't see anyone stating directly (exception: trolls) that Obama
is doing this to purposefully destroy America - only that this is a
truly bad idea that will hurt America.
It's completely possible that outside the two dimensional world you
seem to live that someone can believe a policy is stupid without
believing those voting for it a doing so maliciously.
Or, as has been said thousands of times before, "Never attribute to
malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Chris Weaver|6.27.09 @ 10:11AM|#
Check out this Onion-style parody of yesterday's "cap and tax" vote entitled: "Democrats Force Quick Vote on 'Cap and Tax' Legislation, Citing an 'Escalating Skepticism Crisis' Regarding Climate Warming Theories": http://www.optoons.blogspot.com/ (June 27 entry)
|6.27.09 @ 10:38AM|#
Passed the house without ever having been read by any of the
cretins who voted for it.
This bill will be remembered as the Smoot-Hawley legislation of the
second great depression.
-jcr
|6.27.09 @ 10:39AM|#
I like the general direction he is pointing the
country.
I can only infer from this statement that you were a fan of GWB,
too. Either that, or you've been fooled by rhetoric.
-jcr
Rich|6.27.09 @ 11:10AM|#
> Has anyone here actually read the damn bill?
15 (6) ACTUALLY READING THE DAMN BILL.-The term 'actually reading
the damn bill' means
16 Viewing the text on
17 (i) Paper made from trees, brush, slash, residues, or any
18 other vegetative matter removed from within
19 600 feet of any building, campground, or route
20 designated for evacuation by a public official
21 with responsibility for emergency preparedness,
22 or from within 300 feet of a paved road, electric
23 transmission line, utility tower, or water supply line''
24 or
25 (ii) a computer screen in
26 a heated, fully-enclosed compartment
27 with one or more solid or glass doors that is designed
28 to maintain the temperature of hot food that
29 has been cooked in a separate appliance. Such term
30 does not viewing in heated glass merchandizing cabinets,
31 drawer warmers, commercial hot food holding cabinets with
32 interior volumes of less than 8 cubic feet, or cook-and-hold
appliances.
33 (7) IN GENERAL.-Any person may petition
34 the Administrator to designate as 'actually reading the damn
bill' the inhalation of
35 any anthropogenic gas 1 metric ton of which makes
36 the same or greater contribution to global warming
37 over 100 years as 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide.
38 (8) Not later than 18 months after enactment,
39 the Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing
requirements
40 for consumer education materials on best practices associated
with
41 'actually reading the damn bill' while using containers which
contain less
42 than 20 pounds of a class II, group II substance and
43 prohibiting the sale or distribution, or offer for sale
44 or distribution, of any class II, group II substance
45 in any container which contains less than 20 pounds
46 of such class II, group II substance,
47 unless consumer education materials consistent with such
48 requirements are displayed and available at point-of-sale
locations.
So, no.
|6.27.09 @ 11:25AM|#
Don't worry, you will be seeing those "straightforward" taxes proposed during the healthcare debates.
Perhaps. But I suspect that the outcry over the leaked versions
will cause them to also make the bills ramp up over a period of
time, though not as long as this one.
Theoretically, they'd like to get it paid for by cutting
unnecessary medical expenditures (in their view), over a long
process. What I suspect is that that's what they'll do in a
compromise, and then in the future the compromise will be undone;
the expensive expansion of coverage will stay, but all the cost
savings will be eliminated through politics, and the result will
only be a much larger deficit and debt than promised.
The initial bill will end up scoring fairly neutral, but on the
basis of care reductions that in the long run will not happen.
Mike M.|6.27.09 @ 11:31AM|#
If we still lived in a strong, independent country, Nancy Pelosi and her ilk would be tarred and feathered, or put in a stockade or something for little children to throw rotten tomatoes at.
|6.27.09 @ 11:35AM|#
The government only "issues" emission permits. This allows for the free trade of emissions. A direct tax on fossils (and subsidies to renewables), would allow the government to collect taxes and redistribute as they see fit.
Yes, but if the emission permits work, then they raise the price of
anything that emits for consumers. That's how they work, but making
things as expensive as a tax does. By issuing permits instead of
auctioning them (or taxing), all that happens is that instead of
the government getting the money (and possibly being able to cut
other taxes, heh, I wish), certain politically favored businesses
get the money.
Don't think that the businesses getting the money means that
consumers get benefits, either. Not only does economics not predict
that, but if that happened, then cap-and-trade wouldn't work in
reducing emissions.
There's a reason why Greg Mankiw likes to say that "Cap and trade
with the permits given away equals tax plus corporate
welfare."
I have concerns about the effects on businesses here if this forces a net increase in costs. Will they be competitive in the world market? Will they move elsewhere? Will the gubmint decide the businesses now need bigass subsidies to remain competitive?
Some sorts of emissions taxes or cost increases, like increasing
gasoline, have relatively small effects in causing businesses to
move. People are less likely to move the country in order to
commute elsewhere.
Some sorts of cost increases would indeed make businesses less
competitive and move elsewhere, primarily to China and India.
That's why in Europe they are indeed using "bigass subsidies" and
exemptions for any business that might move, with the result that
their cap-and-trade system didn't even reduce emissions as much as
GWB's "do nothing but watch the price of oil rise" over the last
eight years.
Some businesses, like farming, are relatively unlikely to move even
without subsidies, just be poorer. It's difficult to take the soil
and climate with you, like you can a factor. Don't worry, though,
Chairman Peterson (D-MN) of the Ag Committee made sure that they're
still getting "bigass subsidies" too.
You'll be glad to know, brotherben, that the bill just passed by
the Senate includes enough "bigass subsidies" so that it won't
actually meaningfully reduce emissions for 20 years, but it will
ensure that we'll take money from consumers and some companies in
order to give it to other politically connected companies.
That much you can tell by looking at small parts of the bill. Since
I haven't read all 1600 pages, it's difficult to know exactly who's
a winner who's getting subsidized, and who's a loser who's
subsidizing. The ethanol barons are going to do well, though.
Michael Ejercito|6.27.09 @ 11:57AM|#
How is some regulatory scheme supposed to be more efficient at fighting climate change than utilizing the information from the TTAPS study, one of the most groundbreaking scientific papers since "The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"?
|6.27.09 @ 12:11PM|#
brotherben, John Boehner read over an hour's worth of the bill yesterday. The passages I heard scared the living shit out of me. Federal building code enforcers in every town and village in America? No fucking thank you.
|6.27.09 @ 12:14PM|#
The only funny part of the debate was the colliliqies between Waxman and the fence leaners begging for their cutouts. How bills can have things like "place markers" I have no idea.
|6.27.09 @ 12:38PM|#
''(C) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW.-An adjusted
16 fee rate prescribed under subparagraph (A)
17 shall not be subject to judicial review."
Please allow me to (once again)show my ignorance. This is from a
passage regarding fees placed by the government on trades of
credits on commodities markets. What is judicial review?
Nathan Thornton|6.27.09 @ 12:44PM|#
Create jobs my butt. While China and these other countries are building two or more coal fired plants a month we think our contribution will help globally. Here is a thought for all you morons out there who think this is the way to go for our future. If this passes senate you may as well kiss West Virginia goodbye and Southwest Virginia,Eastern Kentucky, parts of Ohio,and the midwest who depend on the mining of coal. I guess then we will strip thousands of acres of forest and land and replace these sites with acres and acres of solar arrays and wind turbines. You might as well get used to seeing white and blue dotting the landscape instead of flowers and trees. If you think I'm kidding just do a search online at current green energy sites and see what they look like and how many people they supply. We still need petroleum by products to lubricate machinery,make plastic products, cleaning supplies and a thousand other products we consume. You need the coal to coke the steel for construction and anything else made of metal. Who do you think will end up paying for increase in production,bet you it won't be the govt.
Peter|6.27.09 @ 12:48PM|#
And of course since Obama announced the closure of Gitmo
before having enough of a plan to know what to do with
them...
How about burning terrorists for bio fuel. What is the carbon
emissions of a cremation? This way we could kill two birds with one
stone and, if it would help some environmentalists get on board, we
could even paint them green first.
|6.27.09 @ 1:03PM|#
This is from a passage regarding fees placed by the government on trades of credits on commodities markets. What is judicial review?
Exactly what you probably
think it means. It means that no court will be able to review
the regulations setting the fees and invalidate them, that this
particular administrative law cannot be appeal to courts, only to
the executive branch.
|6.27.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Thank you Mr. Thacker. So if I read this right, the commission
can set a fee rate of x-dollars per million dollars of trade. The
rate, according to the bill, is based on on average rate needed to
fund the oversight if I understand it. This rate is set in stone
until the commission changes it again. (higher I assume)
Well crap. That makes me think it's necessary to read the whole
damn thing and see what other wonderments are there.
You bastards are makin me think about this shit and It is a bit
unsettling.
|6.27.09 @ 1:12PM|#
So they finally came up with a tax on air!!! What next, tax the sunlight we get?
Gilbert Martin|6.27.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Every one of the politicians who voted for this massive and
unconstitutional government power grab is a communist traitor to
the country.
Pure and simple that's all there is to it.
|6.27.09 @ 1:46PM|#
It won't be long before they tell us we can't live below the gnat line because air conditioning hurts the environment. This bill is just the camel's torso under the tent.
Mike M.|6.27.09 @ 2:15PM|#
Every one of the politicians who voted for this massive and
unconstitutional government power grab is a communist traitor to
the country.
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
Fluffy|6.27.09 @ 2:29PM|#
If this bill allows the state to hand out emission permits to
certain companies, who then get to force the rest of us to buy
those permits in order to engage in economic activity, then it
represents the establishment of a "carbon aristocracy" every bit as
pernicious as the "land aristocracies" of the Middle Ages.
The creation of an aristocracy cries out for the creation of a
revolution. It's really that simple.
|6.27.09 @ 2:37PM|#
Mark Levin was saying that this bill does a lot more than cap and trade. It makes a proposed California state law, one that would require a 30% (raised to 50% in 2012) improvement in home energy efficiency on all new homes, mandatory nationally. It would give, for the first time, federal jurisdiction over local building codes. And it would allow "concensus", not Congressional action, to further modify these rules in the future. I shudder to think what a house would cost under these rules. So much for a housing recovery.
But don't you understand? In the minds of those geniuses in
Washington who run our lives, anything that drives house prices up
is considered a "recovery." And this will definitely drive the
price of housing up.
MNG|6.27.09 @ 4:27PM|#
"If this bill allows the state to hand out emission permits to
certain companies, who then get to force the rest of us to buy
those permits in order to engage in economic activity, then it
represents the establishment of a "carbon aristocracy" every bit as
pernicious as the "land aristocracies" of the Middle Ages."
Well, perhaps that is a secondary result and certainly a terrible
one, but the primary goal will be to address a process that many
scientists think will cause mankind a great deal of harm.
Michael Ejercito|6.27.09 @ 4:44PM|#
Well, perhaps that is a secondary result and certainly a terrible one, but the primary goal will be to address a process that many scientists think will cause mankind a great deal of harm.
And this is a better solution than the one implied by the TTAPS
study because...
|6.27.09 @ 4:45PM|#
Does the math look anywhere near as bad anymore?
So, you propose buying alternative energy sources now, when they
are uncompetitive in price with current means of producing energy,
in the hope that eventually these sources * might * eventually
become cost-competitive?
Instead of waiting to buy alternative energy sources when they
become price-competitive, at which point you wouldn't have to act
at all because the utility companies, being rational market actors,
would voluntarily switch to those energy sources themselves?
So, yes, the math looks bad.
Or, from Economics in One Lesson, why you wait to replace
existing infrastructure until it becomes economically
rational
|6.27.09 @ 4:51PM|#
Well, perhaps that is a secondary result and certainly a
terrible one, but the primary goal will be to address a process
that many scientists think will cause mankind a great deal of
harm
So, you embrace a known terrible result because some scientists
think there might be harms that need to be avoided, despite many
dissenting scientists who think they are wrong, and despite recent
data on average global temperatures indicating those scientists
advocating pursuing this known terrible outcome may be wrong or at
least unduly pessimistic?
Thanks, but I'm voting against my congresscritter for voting for
cap-and-trade (and, well, for every other vote she has cast, too,
but that's another rant.)
Michael Ejercito|6.27.09 @ 4:55PM|#
So, you embrace a known terrible result because some scientists think there might be harms that need to be avoided, despite many dissenting scientists who think they are wrong, and despite recent data on average global temperatures indicating those scientists advocating pursuing this known terrible outcome may be wrong or at least unduly pessimistic?
Note that no one has answered this question:
How is some regulatory scheme supposed to be more efficient at
fighting climate change than utilizing the information from the
TTAPS study, one of the most groundbreaking scientific papers since
"The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"?
|6.27.09 @ 5:27PM|#
June 27, 2009
New York (MSM)
Noted libertarian blogger Fluffy, today claimed that the United
States Congress has conspired to create a "carbon aristocracy" that
shall enslave the masses. Fluffy also claimed that this new green
royalty shall be "every bit as pernicious as the 'land
aristocracies' of the Middle Ages."
Fluffy also called for revolution, shouting, "the creation of an
aristocracy cries out for the creation of a revolution."
Reaction from both congressional democrats and republicans was
uniform in denouncing Fluffy's statements. Senator Orrin Hatch
dismissed the statements as "kooky, fringe liberatrian conspiracy
non-sense." A spokeperson for Senator Chuck Schumer said "the
American people are sick and tired of such thinly veiled,
anti-semetic, vitriolic hate filled rantings."
The White House released a statement late this afternoon
criticizing the claims as "outrageous" and a "representation of the
old politics of discord and divide." The White House added that
President Obama would not dignify the "kooky conspiracy theory"
with a response.
Morris Dees of the SOuthern Poverty Law Center said that Fluffy's
comments "underscored the accuracy and importance of the DHS
study." Dees believes that Fluffy's words were "motivated by hate."
He added that DHS and all law enforcement agencies must make the
prosecution of hate speech like Fluffy's a top priority.
Ironically, unnamed libertarian sources say that FLuffy was often
quite critical of other anti-government groups whom he deemed "too
nutty."
The Angry Optimist|6.27.09 @ 6:05PM|#
*eyeroll* - thanks for that piece of irrelevancy, LM. So, are all alternative viewpoints valid and should be accepted as rational and "not nutty" or what?
</|6.27.09 @ 6:49PM|#
Now we're going to have to disassociate Fluffy from the
mainstream Atheist-Marijuana Tax-Market Utilitarian-Gay Marriage
Party.
No bigoted nut cases allowed!
MNG|6.27.09 @ 7:29PM|#
prole
That data, or what you've heard about it rather, may convince you
and "many" dissenting scientists, but until the larger number of
scientists who advocate the GW consensus view start to be convinced
then I think policymakers are surely rational to act in ways that,
while having a certain bad result (not sure if it is surely as
terrible as you think it will be) also may likely lead to real
strides that may benefit mankind.
Who should a rational person who is no expert in this area go with?
Every major scientific professional organization has blessed the
IPCC view of GW. That view surely came from examining relevant data
with the appropriate tools, rather than nutty or evil cabals. Maybe
they are wrong, at times minority views are right. But no rational
person would have as a general policy going with positions that
command only a minority within the relevant expert communities. Why
trust the experts when it comes to doctors and nuclear physicists
but not here?
To an outsider it looks like the difference maker is simply
ideology...Accepting the GW consensus view would likely suggest
curbs on some market activity. If a group that has as its raison
d'etre the idea that restrictions on market activity are the
devil's work finds itself on the minority side in a scientific
debate which, if resolved the other way would likely justify such
curbs, then it's simply more likely that your side has wrongly
intepreted the relevant information and analyses to protect your
worldview...
|6.27.09 @ 7:47PM|#
WE WIN NYAH NYAH NYAH! SUCK IT DENIALIST BITCHES!
CONGRESS HAS MADE IT A FACT!
we will work together and overcome. you don't need to be afraid
anymore. you lost. its time to join the movement to a healthier,
happier EARTH.
Captain Trade is just the first step towards the vaporeous glory
that awaits, JOIN!!!
|6.27.09 @ 7:57PM|#
MNG, I agree that there is probably a component of the dissenting minority that is as you describe, but not all of us. I believed in catastrophic AGW until I started doing research on my own.
db|6.27.09 @ 8:01PM|#
Chad, are you an engineer? Based on what I've seen you write on
this and other subjects in the past, I think not. If you are, I
vote to remove the ABET accreditation of the university you
attended.
That's why you pay some large electric company to install a much bigger, much more efficient turbine in some very windy place, and then send the juice to you over a high voltage line.
Bigger wind turbines are not necessarily more efficient--the
bigger, the more complicated the ancillary systems must be.
You really don't understand power distribution do you? You
apparently also don't know anything about voltage support, system
frequencies, and inductive loads. Your apparent reliance on high
voltage (I presume DC, since that's really fashionable with you
types right now) lines for efficient transmission belies a
high-school level (at best) understanding of the technical issues
involved here.
Are you aware of what the wind energy map of the United States
looks like? That there are large swathes of countryside that cannot
offer much in the way of reliable winds to maintain the capacity
factor of a wind farm anywhere near levels to make it economically
competitive with fossil fuels?
And guess what...electricity prices are going to up substantially regardless of cap-and-trade. Do you really think your bill would stay at $200 for 30 years?
My economic calculations did not neglect projected inflation. Part
of what I do for a living involves calculating long term financial
effects of major engineering projects in...wait for it...electrical
power generation. So either I missed all the obvious things because
I'm a bad engineer, or you don't know what you're talking
about.
Does the math look anywhere near as bad anymore?
Per my previous statement, yes.
strat|6.27.09 @ 8:38PM|#
"(I'm in flue gas desulfurization, if anyone's looking for a
chemical engineer for a nice warm, gun-loving,
non-overwhelmingly-god-fearing climate.)"
Well there's likely to be tons-o-research money in this for you,
even though the Forbes X-prize-esque bill strikes me as a lot more
like betting ON the people, rather than AGAINST them, as this
travesty does.
I'd suggest Virginia, but we're pretty happy with our nuclear power
here. Then again all those data centers seem to be driving demand
for peaker plants, so you might be set either way.
Chad|6.27.09 @ 9:30PM|#
prolefeed | June 27, 2009, 4:51pm | #
prolefeed | June 27, 2009, 4:51pm | #
Well, perhaps that is a secondary result and certainly a terrible
one, but the primary goal will be to address a process that many
scientists think will cause mankind a great deal of harm
So, you embrace a known terrible result because some scientists
think there might be harms that need to be avoided, despite many
dissenting scientists who think they are wrong, and despite recent
data on average global temperatures indicating those scientists
advocating pursuing this known terrible outcome may be wrong or at
least unduly pessimistic?
If by "some" you mean 97%, by "many" you mean 3%, and by confusing
yearly or monthly averages with the much more meaningful 5 and 10
year averages, you have a point.
Chad|6.27.09 @ 9:52PM|#
db | June 27, 2009, 8:01pm | #
Chad, are you an engineer? Based on what I've seen you write on
this and other subjects in the past, I think not. If you are, I
vote to remove the ABET accreditation of the university you
attended.
I am a scientist, not an engineer.
Bigger wind turbines are not necessarily more efficient--the
bigger, the more complicated the ancillary systems must
be.
I meant efficient in terms of economics, not power captured / power
available. The relationships there are subtle and as far as I know,
don't vary tremendously based on size. However, power available
DOES vary based on size. You simply cannot economically put a small
generator high enough to capture the kinds of winds that a big
generator can, and power is proportional to speed cubed. It is also
proportional to the radius squared. However, costs scale with
radius in a complicated, non-linear manner so there is no a priori
reason to claim bigger is better for that reason.
There is a reason people are building few, big generators rather
than a zillion little ones.
And I doubt many high school students know that high voltage lines
are more efficient than low voltage ones. That's 2nd semester
college physics, which I aced btw. There are plenty of proposals to
build more high voltage lines, as Europe has done. Apparently they
all have less than high school understanding as well.
And yes, I know where the wind power is. And yes, we can ship from
ND, MN and TX to where it needs to go, at a price that is far less
than what we send to the Saudis every year.
Chad|6.27.09 @ 10:01PM|#
My economic calculations did not neglect projected
inflation. Part of what I do for a living involves calculating long
term financial effects of major engineering projects in...wait for
it...electrical power generation. So either I missed all the
obvious things because I'm a bad engineer, or you
I am not talking about inflation. I am talking about real price
increases. And anyway, you are probably under-estimating inflation
and over-estimating how much you could make on alternative
investments, but that is another story.
And yes, you are quite a bad engineer if you don't know that kwh
per khw, big wind is much cheaper than small wind.
B|6.27.09 @ 10:59PM|#
"WE WIN NYAH NYAH NYAH! SUCK IT DENIALIST BITCHES!
CONGRESS HAS MADE IT A FACT!"
Hey dickhead, we have a bicameral federal legislature. You haven't
accomplished shit yet. And speaking of the Democrats and the
majority they will no longer have in the House once the midterms
roll around and unemployment is still over ten percent, Mississippi
Rep. Gene Taylor (D) had this to say:
"A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become
law"
What was that about you winning again, dickhead?
B|6.27.09 @ 11:07PM|#
"So, he's a proponent of protecting these areas."
Jesus Christ, give me a fucking break. Can we please dispense with
the highminded bullshit that this fucking bill is going to be
saving or protecting anything?
You know you are a Democrat when you think a bunch of corruptocrats
in Washington are going to save the world. I am surprised you were
able to get away from your "I'd like to buy the world a
Coke"-inspired Kumbaya sessions long enough to post a response on
this message board.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 1:02AM|#
prolefeed | June 27, 2009, 4:45pm | #
Does the math look anywhere near as bad anymore?
So, you propose buying alternative energy sources now, when they
are uncompetitive in price with current means of producing energy,
in the hope that eventually these sources * might * eventually
become cost-competitive?
Wind already IS competetive, despite the enormous subsidies to its
competition. That's quite telling.
I do not expect the price wind power to drop significantly in the
future, as the technology is fairly mature and the materials that
are required to make them will likely increase in price. However, I
DO expect the price of competing technologies to increase
substantially, as their fuels and material costs go up AND we do a
better job of forcing these technologies to internalize all of
their costs rather than dumping them on the taxpayers and society
at large.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.28.09 @ 3:35AM|#
Wind already IS competetive, despite the enormous subsidies
to its competition.
It may be, until it slows down or stops blowing entirely.
You really should take a look at a wind map, as db suggests. From
it you could estimate the potential wind power output of the
US.
Compare that number to US demand and see what you get.
|6.28.09 @ 8:50AM|#
I take your 500kV switchyard and I raise you 500 kV! That should
settle it!
NYAH! NYAH! NYAH!
I;M THE BEST!
BUT YOUR BUFFOON AWAITS HIS MAJESTY.
pleased to settle this...
Fluffy|6.28.09 @ 8:57AM|#
Libertymike:
Historically, aristocracies have been marked by two identifying
factors:
1. They possess economic and political rights at law that non-noble
members of a society don't.
2. They are able to use that special status at law to engage in
rent seeking and secure unearned incomes.
This means that if a government hands out the right to emit carbon
dioxide to some citizens, and not to others, and the people who
don't receive that right have to pay the favored citizens for the
privilege of engaging in economic activity, by any reasonable
measurement an aristocracy has been created.
But hey, you're right, that's exactly the same as
believing that a Satanic illuminati conspiracy is in charge of the
world.
robc|6.28.09 @ 9:20AM|#
Who should a rational person who is no expert in this area
go with?
How about nothing?
Despite expert* opinion that the Japanese would sneak attack us at
Pearl Harbor, FDR chose the RIGHT course and waited for the attack
before entering WW2.
I dont think there is anything wrong with waiting for the Pearl
Harbor of global warming before undertaking the Manhattan Project
of global warming.
*Billy Mitchell
Chad|6.28.09 @ 9:43AM|#
Ebeneezer Scrooge | June 28, 2009, 3:35am | #
Wind already IS competetive, despite the enormous subsidies to its
competition.
It may be, until it slows down or stops blowing entirely. You
really should take a look at a wind map, as db suggests. From it
you could estimate the potential wind power output of the US.
Compare that number to US demand and see what you get.
Actually, just the upper plains states could provide us not only
with all the power we use now, but project to use any time in this
century. Apparently you haven't yet done the assignment you
assigned to me.
And in the rare event the wind stopped blowing everywhere
simultaneously, there are a variety of storage options, many
gigawatts worth that are on the grid RIGHT NOW.
I saw a nifty calculation yesterday (at a seminar, no link) that
estimated that the cost of converting over 25 years to 100%
renewable electricity, building the super-grid, switching every car
to a plug-in, and electrifying the rail system would cost about
$250 billion per year.
That's about what we paid for foreign oil last year, or the Iraq
and Afghanistan wars.
Think about it.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 10:58AM|#
robc | June 28, 2009, 10:12am | #
Chad,
Then spend it and reap in mega-profits.
Some people are already spending some, and many will spend much
much more....but only when oil, gas, and coal quit being
subsidized.
Why do libertarians defend fossil fuel subsidies?
MNG|6.28.09 @ 11:19AM|#
robc
You really think that were you Commander in Chief and most
intelligence analyists told you to move our fleet to the Indian
Ocean and engage our enemies there and a much smaller number of
intelligence analyists said, no, our enemies will be best met in
the Pacific, then you would, what, keep the ships in our ports
since both might be wrong?
Would you advocate as a general rule of action for a policymaker
(or for a regular joe in life) to go with minority expert opinion
over majority expert opinion when making choices?
|6.28.09 @ 11:58AM|#
I don't see this piece of crap passing the senate. I'm usually right about hese things ...
|6.28.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Why do libertarians defend fossil fuel subsidies?
I certainly don't. But you have to excuse people's skepticism,
Chad, since people like you are so quick to scream "subsidy!" even
when there's not one, or otherwise deny reality about what requires
a subsidy or not. For example, your comments on trains is
ridiculous. People constantly claim that European trains makes a
profit, which the
the Amtrak OIG report strongly disagrees with, noting that the
subsidies and losses per passenger mile in Europe are very similar
in size to that of the US. (The difference, if you read the report,
is mostly that some European rail companies count government
subsidies as revenue when reporting a profit, and other countries
have two companies, an operating company that shows a profit and an
infrastructure company that is subsidized-- and that subsidy
includes paying for recurring annual costs like maintaining
rail.)
And then you go on to claim that in the future, people will use
High Speed Rail for distances exceeding 500 miles. Read the GAO report on
High Speed Rail. Particularly figure 3 on page 16, which shows
that people traveling 1000 km (625 mi) in Japan fly (80% share) or
drive (15% share), they don't take rail. Flying and driving also
beat rail in 750 km (470 mi) to 1000 km ranges as well. That's
despite a pretty straight and fast shinkansen line between, say,
Hiroshima and Tokyo, high gas taxes, and high tolls on
highways.
So even if all the externalities you cite were taken care of and
the price of oil skyrocketed, evidence from Japan indicates that
people still wouldn't take rail over distances exceeded 500 miles
or so.
People like to pretend that anything that they don't like that
seems to be succeeding must be subsidized. To achieve this end,
they'll categorize almost anything as a subsidy, whether it is one
or not, or categorize things as subsidies while ignoring similar
things for what they like. I've heard people calling the
non-banning of offshore oil as a subsidy. (As opposed to the
government setting prices for government-owned land, which could be
a subsidy, and is inferior to auctioning or selling off the land
fairly, both of which have been proposed repeatedly by libertarians
and even by the Bush Administration, though shot down by
Congress.)
Granted, of course, libertarians make the same sort of mistake all
the time. Sometimes even more so, in fact, since libertarians want
to avoid cognitive dissonance of both liking something that seems
to fail in the free market and liking the free market.
Libertarians who like urban areas make ridiculously overwrought
claims about roads being highly subsidized all the time that are
patently untrue. Even when you break it down into the roads that
are subsidized, it's limited to local roads paid for by local
taxes.
So forgive me for not accepting your blithe claims about fossil
fuels being so heavily subsidized, and especially not your claim
about libertarians supporting the subsidies. Fossil fuels are
subsidized somewhat, but all alternative forms of energy are
subsidized even more, on any sort of per use or per production
basis. The last two energy bills, which subsidized fossil fuels
somewhat (and certain other forms of energy more), were voted for
by President Obama in the Senate, and opposed by libertarians. (And
opposed by McCain, FWIW.)
jtuf|6.28.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Right after the vote, D.C. was hit by a huge freakish hailstorm. Twitter canvas suggests that supporters see it as evidence that this climate change thing is serious. Opponents see it as evidence of God's displeasure with the vote. Omens can be so tricky sometimes.
Theory 1: Hailstorms are a result of greenhouse gasses in the
atmosphere.
Solution: Send a Gazillion dollars to the federal government to
purify the heavens.
Theory 2: Hailstorms are punishment from an angry divine
being.
Solution: Send a Gazillion dollars to the Church of Whatever to
appease the heavens.
Theory 3: Hailstorms happen.
Solution: Be stuck inside catching up on house work one or two days
per decade.
Sometimes, the sheer simplicity/frugality of the "Stuff Happens"
theory makes it the best choice.
B|6.28.09 @ 12:47PM|#
Christ allmighty, would the people on this message board who
support this monstrosity please quit acting like:
a) this fucking bill is gonna make any sort of dent in emissions
within the next couple decades
b)we have averted some sort of natural disaster now that the
Taxocrats have passed an economy-killing bill in the House. The
Pearl Harbor analogy is so fucking retarded, it doesn't even
deserve a response
c)this bill is somehow the only way to accomplish any sort of
climate change goals
Seriously, if you are thinking to yourself "man, now that this bill
has passed the House, I can rest easier knowing the world will be
saved", you should just do yourself a favor and fucking shoot
yourself, because if you leave your house, you might get hit by a
truck.
And you are an idiot.
robc|6.28.09 @ 1:39PM|#
Why do libertarians defend fossil fuel subsidies?
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE
robc|6.28.09 @ 1:44PM|#
Would you advocate as a general rule of action for a policymaker
(or for a regular joe in life) to go with minority expert opinion
over majority expert opinion when making choices?
I recommend going with the one that is right. :) Truth is not
determined by vote.
But, when it comes to large scale Manhattan style projects that are
of questionable constitutionality at best (Manhattan project wasnt,
we were in a declared war), I favor waiting until we know for sure
which is right.
We could have attacked Japan in 1936. It would have prevented Peral
Harbor and maybe the whole Pac theatre of WW2. Do you really think
that was the right idea?
B|6.28.09 @ 1:44PM|#
"Twitter canvas suggests that supporters see it as evidence that
this climate change thing is serious"
Supporters of this climate change bill who make the above statement
are analagous to Obama and his argument about stimulus jobs. Most
people in the United States don't view cold weather as evidence of
global warming, but like Obama with his riotously hilarious
bullshit claims that he has "saved 150,000 jobs', you can't
disprove the claims of the climate change hysterics when they blame
every weather anamoly or every cold spell on global warming. And
that is why a majority of Americans think they are so full of
shit.
That and the fact that the most visible advocate of this bullshit
in the US, Al Gore, also happens to be a hypocrite on a heretofore
unseen epic scale.
|6.28.09 @ 1:49PM|#
Some open questions:
1. What will be the cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions over the
next 100 years if this bill is implemented as written?
2. How many ppm reduction in atmospheric CO2 will result from the
reduced emissions?
3. What will be the impact on global average temperature of the
lower concentration of greenhouse gases?
4. How much will this bill cost to implement as written, both in
direct expenditures and lost economic productivity?
Anybody?
MNG|6.28.09 @ 1:51PM|#
"I recommend going with the one that is right."
Well of course I'm talking about situations in which the
decision-maker does not know which one is right, and where it would
take years of training and experience to be qualified to know.
Art-P.O.G.|6.28.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Hey, B, phalkor trolled ya good.
Russ R.,
Those are the same sort of questions I have.
Also, I want more engineer vs. scientist face-offs. Chad, you
finally said something interesting to me.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 2:02PM|#
John Thacker | June 28, 2009, 12:25pm | #
I certainly don't. But you have to excuse people's skepticism,
Chad, since people like you are so quick to scream "subsidy!" even
when there's not one, or otherwise deny reality about what requires
a subsidy or not.
The ability to use deface public property or to dispose of your
trash without being charged a price equal to the damage you cause
is a subsidy. What's hard to understand? Coal would be out of
business tomorrow without this subsidy. Oil and natural gas would
survive, but be significantly diminished.
For example, your comments on trains is ridiculous. People
constantly claim that European trains makes a profit
I like how you switch from "your" to "people". I did not make such
a claim. There are few "profitable" train lines in the world,
mostly in Japan. But on the other hand, there are few "profitable"
roads, either.
And then you go on to claim that in the future, people will use
High Speed Rail for distances exceeding 500 miles.
I did? When? I specifically remember saying that this was
approximately the range in which the switch-over from high speed
trains to airplanes happens, given current prices and subsidies.
People fly from Hiroshima to Tokyo. They ride the train from Osaka.
However, aviation fuel will increase in price much more than
electricity, so the break-even range will increase.
So even if all the externalities you cite were taken care of
and the price of oil skyrocketed, evidence from Japan indicates
that people still wouldn't take rail over distances exceeded 500
miles or so.
Gas is about $4 bucks a gallon in Japan. That isn't
"sky-rocketing". That is next summer. Wait until you see numbers
like $6 and $7 in a few years when Peak Oil really starts to bite
our ass. Btw, Peak Oil probably happened last July. Be
prepared.
People like to pretend that anything that they don't like that
seems to be succeeding must be subsidized.
Just like you refuse to acknowledge that trillions of dollars in
free garbage disposal isn't a subsidy for an industry you like?
Yes, that's trillions with a T.
To achieve this end, they'll categorize almost anything as a
subsidy, whether it is one or not, or categorize things as
subsidies while ignoring similar things for what they
like.
Please, tell list all the subsidies that wind or solar receive, and
explain how it amounts to a similar magnitude as the fossil fuel
subsidies. Sure, there are some externalities, but they are
small.
I've heard people calling the non-banning of offshore oil as a
subsidy.
That would be incorrect. But the right to temporarily destroy
scenery and put the local environment at risk IS a subsidy, unless
appropriately paid for. Also, charging royalty rates that anything
less than the best we can get is also a subsidy. Far too often, we
have sold our oil for a song and a dance, and then didn't even hold
the corporations to the low standards and prices that we set.
Granted, of course, libertarians make the same sort of mistake
all the time. Sometimes even more so, in fact, since libertarians
want to avoid cognitive dissonance of both liking something that
seems to fail in the free market and liking the free
market.
Anyone who likes coal or our complete dependance on a mixture of
black slime sold to us by our enemies is surely suffering from
something worse than cognitive dissonance.
Libertarians who like urban areas make ridiculously overwrought
claims about roads being highly subsidized all the time that are
patently untrue. Even when you break it down into the roads that
are subsidized, it's limited to local roads paid for by local
taxes.
Yep, and that's about a third of road spending. So roads are about
as subsidized as pubic transit, which also typically brings in
about 2/3 of its revenue on its own, and gets 1/3 from the
government. What a coincidence.
And we won't even get into the pollution subsidies and the
subsidies related to protecting gasoline supplies.
So forgive me for not accepting your blithe claims about fossil
fuels being so heavily subsidized, and especially not your claim
about libertarians supporting the subsidies.
But you won't quit supporting massive pollution subsidies. What is
"blithe" about claiming that pollution should have a price? This is
Econ 101.
Fossil fuels are subsidized somewhat
"Somewhat" failes to capture the essense of
"hundreds of billions per year".
but all alternative forms of energy are subsidized even more,
on any sort of per use or per production basis.
See, you still refuse to acknowledge indirect subsidies. In terms
of direct cash, you are correct. In terms of free services and free
rights to pollute, you are completely wrong.
MNG|6.28.09 @ 2:07PM|#
I've always found that there is little dislike deeper than that between engineers and scientists...
Mike M.|6.28.09 @ 2:08PM|#
I don't see this piece of crap passing the senate. I'm
usually right about hese things ...
From listening to senator Inhofe, it sounds as though the bill is
essentially dead on arrival in the Senate, but I'm not sure how
much I buy that.
I simply don't trust these guys, and Obama is going to be bribing
every senator with everything he has on this.
MNG|6.28.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Chad
I'm not sure how many libertarians support any subsidies for any
energy source. I seem to recall fluffy loudly denouncing the
subsidies in housing policy, road construction, etc.,, that have
contributed to sprawl and promotion of certain types of
fuel...
But if you're point is that we have subsidized oil etc., for so
long that it now has an unfair advantage over other sources that
would be better for us, then I'm listening...
MNG|6.28.09 @ 2:11PM|#
From listening to Senator Inhofe, I also gather that men walked with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 2:31PM|#
MNG | June 28, 2009, 2:10pm | #
Chad
I'm not sure how many libertarians support any subsidies for any
energy source. I seem to recall fluffy loudly denouncing the
subsidies in housing policy, road construction, etc.,, that have
contributed to sprawl and promotion of certain types of
fuel...
The problem is that you very narrowly and selectively define
"subsidy" in a way that ignores massive subsidies that you happen
to like.
The right to pollute other peoples' or public property for low or
no cost is a subsidy, and should be eliminated wherever it is
found.
However, the realty is that we live in a world that has, and always
will have, countless direct and indirect subsidies. Therefore, even
if markets were actually efficient (which is not true), they still
won't necessarily get the optimal answer. The efficient market
hypothethesis which is the core of libertarian thinking is simply
false. It is a nice, logically consistent mathematical parlor game
that only works in a world that doesn't exist populated by people
who do not exist.
You are right, MNG. While I feel that all subsidies for fossil
fuels should be eliminated, I do not feel the same for renewables.
Fossil fuels and nuclear have been given a massive head start, and
the competition deserves a chance to catch up.
The same is true for roads. Roads look cheap compared to public
transportation because the land and basic infrastructure was
largely obtained via tax money a century ago and is fully
amortized. Trains look expensive because any new train line built
has to pay off millions or even billions in construction costs, yet
compete largely against a road system which is largely only paying
maintenance costs.
robc|6.28.09 @ 2:33PM|#
MNG,
Chad has never once responded to my Coase rant.
I dont think he can distinguish between subsidies and property
rights.
Art-P.O.G.|6.28.09 @ 2:43PM|#
The efficient market hypothethesis which is the core of libertarian thinking is simply false. It is a nice, logically consistent mathematical parlor game that only works in a world that doesn't exist populated by people who do not exist.
Link?
robc|6.28.09 @ 2:46PM|#
The efficient market hypothethesis which is the core of
libertarian thinking is simply false.
The Austrian's agree with you.
Oh wait, that is the core of libertarian economic thinking
(IMO).
We have a contradiction! We have a contradiction!
As Rand would say: check your premises.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.28.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Actually, just the upper plains states could provide us not
only with all the power we use now, but project to use any time in
this century.
Based on what assumptions? Bringing all that wind to full
stagnation, and 100% energy conversion efficiency?
If was that easy for wind to solve our problems, they'd never have
started using oil out in Kansas.
|6.28.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Some open questions:
1. What will be the cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions over the next 100 years if this bill is implemented as written?
2. How many ppm reduction in atmospheric CO2 will result from the reduced emissions?
3. What will be the impact on global average temperature of the lower concentration of greenhouse gases?
4. How much will this bill cost to implement as written, both in direct expenditures and lost economic productivity?
Anybody?
I have the answers.
1. Nobody knows.
2. You're guess is as good as anybody's.
3. Undetermined
4. At least 5 times the amount SWAGed by the bill's writers.
The Angry Optimist|6.28.09 @ 3:58PM|#
don't forget that Chad, with his disgusting fetish for yuppie boondoggles like rail projects, has actually advocated that we tear up the roads because of the unfair advantage roads have over rail and we start over.
|6.28.09 @ 4:09PM|#
From listening to Senator Inhofe, I also gather that men walked with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago.
[citation needed] as they say in the wikipedia.
Not that it would surprise me that the author of the "lesbian threat" believed other equally stupid things, I have never actually heard that particular one from the good Senator.
It does no one's cause any good to introduce facts not in evidence.
|6.28.09 @ 4:16PM|#
Once you understand what words mean in Chad's world, you gain
some understanding of his arrogance.
From Chad's dictionary:
market failure: people buying something of which Chad
disaproves.
subsidy: what something of which Chad disaproves must be getting so
that it becomes the preference of consumers.
|6.28.09 @ 4:18PM|#
4. At least 5 times the amount SWAGed by the bill's writers.
Damn, JsubD, I would never have taken you for such a starry-eyed
optimist. :)
BeesInTheBrain|6.28.09 @ 4:28PM|#
The right to pollute other peoples' or public property for
low or no cost is a subsidy, and should be eliminated wherever it
is found.
This is freakin hilarious. So if we follow this logic out then
anything that isn't specifically taxed is subsidized.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 4:32PM|#
robc | June 28, 2009, 2:33pm | #
MNG,
Chad has never once responded to my Coase rant.
I dont think he can distinguish between subsidies and property
rights.
Unless you want 6500000000^2/2 lawsuits, I don't think Coase has
much to say about environmental issues. Coase theory assumes
minimal transaction costs, which may be relevant in a dispute
between me and my neighbor. They are clearly not, however, when it
is everyone interacting with everyone else.
|6.28.09 @ 4:34PM|#
Some facts that might add substance to this debate:
With funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tom
Wigley at The National Center for Atmospheric Research has
developed a model that users can download and run for free called
MAGICC/SCENGEN
(Model for the Assessment of
Greenhouse gas Induced
Climate Change - Regional climate
SCENario GENerator). Downloading
requires you to provide an email address, for notification of model
upgrades.
If you don't feel like doing the math yourself, just look for what
others have calculated:
Googling
"MAGICC Waxman-Markey" will return a number of results from
people using the MAGICC model to estimate the climate impact of
Waxman-Markey.
I'll follow with some quotes and sources.
|6.28.09 @ 4:35PM|#
From World Climate Report:
To assess the climate impact of the Waxman-Markey restrictions,
we first have to develop a baseline from which to apply the
emissions reductions. In this case, we use the middle-of-the-road
emissions scenario (A1B) as developed by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We then run MAGICC (using its
default parameter settings) with the before and after emissions
scenarios to produce the projections of future global
temperature.
When we do this, here is what we get:
UNITED STATES ONLY:
Year 2050
Warming from 1990 to 2050, A1B; 1.58ºC
Warming from 1990 to 2050, Waxman-Markey U.S.; 1.54ºC
Temperature "Savings" from Waxman-Markey U.S.; 0.04ºC
Percent Warming "Saved"; 2.5%
Year 2100
Warming from 1990 to 2100, A1B; 2.96ºC
Warming from 1990 to 2100, Waxman-Markey U.S.; 2.85ºC
Temperature "Savings" from Waxman-Markey U.S.; 0.11ºC
Percent Warming "Saved"; 3.7%
For the optimists in the crowd who think that the U.S. will not be
acting alone, we also ran the case assuming that all the countries
that agreed to Kyoto Protocol emissions targets would follow a
similar emissions reduction course as the U.S.
U.S. PLUS KYOTO-OBLIGATED NATIONS
Year 2050
Warming from 1990 to 2050, A1B; 1.58ºC
Warming from 1990 to 2050, Waxman-Markey Kyoto; 1.50ºC
Temperature "Savings" from Waxman-Markey Kyoto; 0.08ºC
Percent Warming "Saved"; 5.0%
Year 2100
Warming from 1990 to 2100, A1B; 2.96ºC
Warming from 1990 to 2100, Waxman-Markey Kyoto; 2.74ºC
Temperature "Savings" from Waxman-Markey Kyoto; 0.22ºC
Percent Warming "Saved"; 7.4%
The bottom line here is that we are talking about global
temperature savings on the order of one or two tenths of a degree
by the end of the century even if the rest of the developed world
does the same-values that are virtually meaningless when held
against the total projected temperature rise.
Consequently, no matter how you slice it, the Waxman-Markey
proposal is a completely futile legislative exercise, in terms of
effect on global warming.
Source
Chad|6.28.09 @ 4:35PM|#
The Angry Optimist | June 28, 2009, 3:58pm | #
don't forget that Chad, with his disgusting fetish for yuppie
boondoggles like rail projects, has actually advocated that we tear
up the roads because of the unfair advantage roads have over rail
and we start over.
No, I only asked you to think what WOULD happen if we started over
knowing what we know now.
Hopefully, you would come to the realization that even
theoretically perfectly efficient markets can get into sub-optimal
states due to path dependance.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 4:38PM|#
J sub D | June 28, 2009, 3:54pm | #
Anybody?
I have the answers.
1. Nobody knows.
2. You're guess is as good as anybody's.
3. Undetermined
4. At least 5 times the amount SWAGed by the bill's
writers.
Perhaps, you know, you could help alleviate your ignorance by doing
some research? Oddly enough, it almost seems you just prefer to be
ignorant.
|6.28.09 @ 4:43PM|#
From IHateAlGore.com:
"Basically, Waxman-Markey calls for U.S. emissions to be
reduced to 20% below the 2005 emissions level by 2020, 42% below
2005 levels by 2030, and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.
We'll assume that U.S. emissions remain constant at that reduced
value for the rest of the century. We'll then use MAGICC to produce
temperature projections using these modified scenarios and compare
them with the original projections...
By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a
global temperature "savings" of about 0.05ºC regardless of the IPCC
scenario used-this is equivalent to about 2 years' worth of
warming.
By the year 2100, the emissions pathways become clearly
distinguishable, and so to do the impacts of Waxman-Markey.
Assuming the IPCC mid-range scenario (A1B) Waxman-Markey would
result in a projected temperature rise of 2.847ºC, instead of
2.959ºC rise- a mere 0.112ºC temperature "savings." Under the
IPCC's high-emissions scenario, instead of a projected rise of
4.414ºC, Waxman-Markey limits the rise to 4.219ºC-a "savings" of
0.195ºC. In either case, this works out to about 5 years' worth of
warming.
...The bottom line is that a reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions of greater than 80%, as envisioned in the Waxman-Markey
climate bill will only produce a global temperature "savings"
during the next 50 years of about 0.05ºC. Calculating this isn't
all that difficult or costly. All it takes is a little
MAGICC." Source
|6.28.09 @ 5:01PM|#
Based on the above two calcuations, I'll assume a benefit of 0.1
to 0.2 degrees Celsius in averted global warming 100 years from
now.
As for the costs... the
CBO estimates $21.9 billion annually.
Assuming, quite charitably, that these costs do not escalate over
the next century, the total cost would add up to $2.2 trillion
dollars, to avert less than 0.2 degrees Celsius of global
warming.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 5:03PM|#
.)
And then you go on to claim that in the future, people will use
High Speed Rail for distances exceeding 500 miles. Read the GAO
report on High Speed Rail. Particularly figure 3 on page 16, which
shows that people traveling 1000 km (625 mi) in Japan fly (80%
share) or drive (15% share), they don't take rail. Flying and
driving also beat rail in 750 km (470 mi) to 1000 km ranges as
well. That's despite a pretty straight and fast shinkansen line
between, say, Hiroshima and Tokyo, high gas taxes, and high tolls
on highways.
Here is a more accurate graph of method of transportation vs
distance in Japan...see page 11
http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr03/pdf/f09_oka.pdf
Which would you prefer?
A: A comfortable, 4:40 train ride with one switch in Osaka from
city center to city center, almost no wait, prompt arrival and
departure, no need to arrive more than a few minutes early, and the
ability to buy the ticket in minutes, for a fixed price, right up
to the moment of departure
or
B: A 50 minute bus ride out to the airport, where you need to
arrive 90 minutes early for your 90 minute flight, and then another
20 minutes to get off the plane before you take another 40 minutes
to get downtown. And don't forget about the hour you wasted
shopping around for cheap tickets, the fact that you will be late
20% of the time, and of course the general discomfort of
flying.
The price is the same....
Actually, I was thinking that these statistics may be off a bit in
any case. I can think of plenty of examples from my personal
experience where people made trips of these distances by train in
Japan, but on one leg of the trip stopped in a third city to tour
or meet people. These trips, of course, would not be counted as a
long trip even though in fact they were.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 5:06PM|#
Russ R. | June 28, 2009, 5:01pm | #
Assuming, quite charitably, that these costs do not escalate over
the next century, the total cost would add up to $2.2 trillion
dollars, to avert less than 0.2 degrees Celsius of global
warming.
Do you believe that the price of fossil fuels will go down and the
price of renewables go up? In that case, costs will escalate.
I find such assumptions rather implausible.
Yes, we can afford 21.9 billion a year. Actually, as I noted early
today, we should be spending about ten times that much, which is
enough to get most of what we need. Note that this would be roughly
what we are paying for oil imports right now, so if renewables are
going to "crush the economy", it has already been crushed by the
Saudis.
|6.28.09 @ 5:12PM|#
Chad, your no delays at the train station assume that the
security nannies won't impose the same regime on rail travel as
they have on air.
That's just as ridiculous and invalid as all the other assumptions
you push around here.
:)
robc|6.28.09 @ 5:14PM|#
Coase theory assumes minimal transaction costs
Wrong.
Coase theory specifically deals with the cases of higher
transaction costs.
Try again.
The Angry Optimist|6.28.09 @ 5:16PM|#
Chad, don't lie. I offered you a deal: get rid of the subsidies
on railroads and I'll support dumping the subsidization of roads.
We'll institute user fees for both and see which one pays for
itself. You, of course, said that you didn't support that because
roads were too far "ahead". So, if you want more rail, you have to
support either the destruction of roads or the subsidization of
railroads at the expense of the maintenance and building of roads,
which amounts to the same thing.
So, which is it?
The Angry Optimist|6.28.09 @ 5:19PM|#
"we" can "afford" 21 billion for no good reason? Really?
Perhaps, Chad, you should realize that if "we" could afford it, it
would be done already.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 5:45PM|#
Isaac Bartram | June 28, 2009, 5:12pm | #
Chad, your no delays at the train station assume that the security
nannies won't impose the same regime on rail travel as they have on
air.
That's just as ridiculous and invalid as all the other assumptions
you push around here.
Why would I assume anything other than what we already do here and
what is currently done overseas? The types of threat are simply not
the same with respect to trains and planes.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 5:47PM|#
The Angry Optimist | June 28, 2009, 5:16pm | #
Chad, don't lie. I offered you a deal: get rid of the subsidies on
railroads and I'll support dumping the subsidization of roads.
We'll institute user fees for both and see which one pays for
itself. You, of course, said that you didn't support that because
roads were too far "ahead". So, if you want more rail, you have to
support either the destruction of roads or the subsidization of
railroads at the expense of the maintenance and building of roads,
which amounts to the same thing.
So, which is it?
Actually I would take that deal if it implied ALL subsidies, which
I doubt you would agree to. But it wouldn't be a fair test, as
roads are starting with a massive, almost completely subsidized
head-start with respect to the in-place infrastructure. The correct
test would be the removal of all subsidies AND paying old subsidies
back with interest.
|6.28.09 @ 5:48PM|#
Chad,
You sort of missed the point. Let me make it more clear for
you:
The entire global climate impact of the Waxman-Markey bill
is expected to be only 0.1-0.2 degrees Celsius by the year
2100.
Is that clear enough?
Chad|6.28.09 @ 5:57PM|#
robc | June 28, 2009, 5:14pm | #
Coase theory specifically deals with the cases of higher
transaction costs.
Which Coase theory is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_Theorem
Criticism
The main criticism often targeted at the Coase theorem is to say
that transaction costs are almost always too high for efficient
bargaining to happen. For instance, economist James Meade argued
that even in a simple case of a beekeeper's bees dusting a nearby
farmer's crops, a Coasean bargaining is inefficient. Ronald Coase
himself asserts that it would be unrealistic to assume there were
no costs in the conduction of market transactions, and that these
costs are "often extremely costly, sufficiently costly at any rate
to prevent many transactions that would be carried out in a world
in which the pricing system worked without cost." (Coase, 1960 -
first paragraph of section VI.) On the other hand this
isn't really a criticism of the theorem itself, since the theorem
considers only those situations in which there are no transaction
costs. (At least, this is how Coase described the theorem during a
1997 interview [1]). Instead, it is a criticism of
applications of the theorem that neglect this crucial
assumption.
Another strain of criticism often points out other problems often
associated with public goods which manifest in coasean bargainings.
In many cases of externalities, the bargaining doesn't happen
between two economic factors, but instead the parties might be a
single large factory versus a thousand landowners nearby. In such
situations, say the critics, not only do transaction costs rise
extraordinarily high, but bargaining is hindered by basic
prisoner's dilemma problems. For instance property rights might say
the landowners must pay the factory to stop polluting, certain
landowners might downplay the harm of pollution on them, trying to
free ride on the other landowners' wallets.
robc|6.28.09 @ 6:21PM|#
Coase didnt declare "Coase's theorem". That was done by someone
else later. Im referring to Coase's work, which was primarily on
the cases with high transaction costs.
With no transaction costs, there isnt even a discussion of property
rights. There is no need, it will always be able to reach the
efficient equilibrium regardless of property rights.
BTW, the wiki page is horrible, especially the Meade example,
because it turns out for most of the 20th century (and well before
Meade's example), beekeepers and farmers were using Coasean
bargaining. So his counter-example is actually an example of it
working. :)
The Friedman link from the wiki page is probably the best quick
primer on Coase Theory (not the theorem).
The Angry Optimist|6.28.09 @ 6:43PM|#
Actually I would take that deal if it implied ALL subsidies, which I doubt you would agree to.
Yes, well, you've already shown that you're willing to make
anything a subsidy, so this is not an honest conversation on your
end.
The Angry Optimist|6.28.09 @ 6:45PM|#
and who cares if it wouldn't be a fair test? If railroads are so
fabulous, you'll get more railroads from the private sector than
you will roads, both in raw numbers and in terms of growth rate. I
pay less taxes and get more transportation options. It's
win-win.
So, as long you'll agree not to make *everything* a "subsidy", we
might have an honest deal.
|6.28.09 @ 7:26PM|#
Chad, my smiley face indicated I was half kidding, but your
answer indicates that you are clearly naive when it comes to what
the state is capable of.
As for "subsidies" received by highways, the gas tax for a long
time acted as a proxy for a user fee for roads. To make a case that
highways are getting subsidies you would have to account for the
huge diversion of gas tax revenue to mass transit.
Wow, I wonder what you could tax to make it so subway riders paid
the full cost of their ride. I know, let's put a tax on subway
fares.
Similarly we'll finance the arts with a tax on gallery, opera and
symphony tickets and building baseball stadiums with a tax on
stadium admission tickets. We'll raise money to subsidize Amtrak
with a tax on Amtrak tickets.
Son, you plain and simple ain't ready for a world without
subsidies, because everything in the world that you think is right
and proper needs to be subsidized or needs to have people put in
jail because you don't like what they're doing.
About everyone here has called you on your arrogant
self-righteousness one time or other but no one has done as well as
the commenter who said:
Fluffy|6.28.09 @ 7:42PM|#
If railroads are so fabulous, you'll get more railroads from
the private sector than you will roads, both in raw numbers and in
terms of growth rate. I pay less taxes and get more transportation
options. It's win-win.
I would take this bet if Chad won't, and I wouldn't even demand the
elimination of the "pollution subsidy" Chad is mainly arguing
about.
If we utterly eliminated government spending on both roads and
railroads simultaneously, and ended the other state supports of the
automobile society [getting rid of any restriction on any property
use up to the property line, the reversion of any extorted
variances or rights of way back to the original property owner,
divestiture of the public road system by the state, elimination of
the power to use eminent domain to build roads, etc.] we might not
see an immediate explosion in road building, but we probably would
see a huge spike in the density of living spaces, and a rapid
attenuation of edge development. The railroad building would emerge
after a transitional period.
MNG|6.28.09 @ 7:48PM|#
TAO
Surely you would agree that one massive disadvantage that, say,
hydrogen cars face in competition with regular cars is that there
are not hydrogen car refilling stations every two miles like there
are with the latter.
Of say one problem with public transportation is that because of a
long history of government intervention in myriad says most people
do not in fact live on the bus route...
But you've never been good at this, seeing that some groups with
massive advantages from government intervention in the past (most
of which would have violated your libertarian principles btw) now
would benefit, indeed dominate, from your "government neutral"
stance.
As I've said, libertarians are like the kid who steals your
everyone's lunch and then when chased down by everybody says "hey,
let's all agree from this point ons that stealing is wrong." That
this leaves him with his ill gotten advantage and the others
disadvantaged seems to not cross you guys minds...
My beef with Chad is more petty. I don't wanna get on a train with
other people if I want to go places. Other people annoy me. I like
the results of this government intervention you bitch about.
MNG|6.28.09 @ 7:50PM|#
Boy that last one was a grammatical nightmare, what I get for posting while watching My Super Ex-Girlfriend on FX...You guys get the points though...
Fluffy|6.28.09 @ 7:51PM|#
As for "subsidies" received by highways, the gas tax for a
long time acted as a proxy for a user fee for roads. To make a case
that highways are getting subsidies you would have to account for
the huge diversion of gas tax revenue to mass transit.
What you fail to realize is that the actual dollars spent on
building roads is only a small part of the way in which the
automobile society has been created by social engineering.
It's not really even necessary to end the road subsidy to kill
suburbia. All that would be necessary is to eliminate the ability
of the state to restrict how people use their property. If property
owners actually had liberty, suburbia would not exist. There would
be no point to paying a premium to live in low-density or
moderately-dense development if any of your abutters could build a
multistory building right up to your property line the day after
you closed on your purchase. Or knock down his McMansion and put up
a strip club. In the absence of micromanagement of land use, higher
density would emerge because each individual would want to maximize
the return he gained from his own individual piece of property. And
since any piece of property could potentially end up with abutters
typical of urban areas, there would be no real economic point to
trying to escape that development pattern.
In the absence of deliberate social engineering and massive state
subsidy, land use patterns would trend towards higher density. A
higher density land use pattern would lower automobile use.
Fluffy|6.28.09 @ 8:00PM|#
As I've said, libertarians are like the kid who steals your
everyone's lunch and then when chased down by everybody says "hey,
let's all agree from this point ons that stealing is wrong." That
this leaves him with his ill gotten advantage and the others
disadvantaged seems to not cross you guys minds...
I get what you're saying here, but if we move from a situation
where no one is secure in his property to a situation where
everyone is secure in his property, we have realized a moral
improvement even if the existing property arrangements at the
moment we make the transition are unjust.
This is because when we're in a Hobbesian state of war of all
against all, the strong can take whatever they like from the weak
at any moment. Changing that to provide the weak with security at
least allows the possibility of improvement in the future, which
the Hobbesian state does not. This is true whether we're talking
about literal barbarism, or even a situation in which the strong
have ritualized their outrages against the weak, and disguised them
behind a legal framework.
If we don't declare an end, after which each person is
secure, no one will ever be secure and the weak will suffer
indefinitely. And although it's tempting to say, "Well, we'll just
put things on a just footing, and then we'll hit the reset
button!" but that process can never end.
MNG|6.28.09 @ 8:01PM|#
But fluffy, wouldn't what you are talking about (gutting zoning
laws, right?) suck?
I wouldn't want someone to be able to put up a theme park next to
my house after I bought it, etc.
|6.28.09 @ 8:03PM|#
I wouldn't want someone to be able to put up a theme park
next to my house after I bought it, etc.
If someone did this to me I'd be penniless.
MNG|6.28.09 @ 8:05PM|#
Well, it's not an equal harm to take from those who have a lot
to create opportunity for those who have little as it was when
those with a lot used government to take from those who had
little.
It's the difference between using government in righting a wrong
and perpetrating one.
BeesInTheBrain|6.28.09 @ 8:05PM|#
"Yes, we can afford 21.9 billion a year. "
It is amazing that people learned nothing from the current credit
crisis. Having the ability to borrow money to pay for something is
not the same as being able to afford something.
robc|6.28.09 @ 8:17PM|#
But fluffy, wouldn't what you are talking about (gutting
zoning laws, right?) suck?
Exact opposite, it would rock. I want someone to open a pub on my
street. But, it isnt allowed.
I wouldn't want someone to be able to put up a theme park next
to my house after I bought it, etc.
Then buy the surrounding land too. Problem solved. You dont own
that land, it isnt yours to say what goes on it.
I wouldnt want it either, but too damn bad. I have this issue right
now. There is an empty lot next to me, but it is too small to put a
reasonable size house on it. However, my street already has a few
shotgun style homes on it. Also, a builder owns the land. I think,
right now, it is too small for a home under current zoning rules.
But those change.
My solution, Im hoping the house on the other side sells soon and
we can pool together to buy it. If not, I will eventually save up
enough to make a reasonable offer. So, before you say my "buy the
surrounding land" idea isnt practical, ummm, Im attempting it.
robc|6.28.09 @ 8:28PM|#
BTW, Im not rigidly hyper-anti-zoning. I would accept a
reasonable compromise between now and none: 2 zones - Industrial
and Other.
I can see some rational behind segregating industrial. Other than
that they, mixed use is the bees knees*.
*why is that complimentary?
The Angry Optimist|6.28.09 @ 8:59PM|#
Shorter MNG: Two wrongs make a right.
I get it, dude, and you're just wrong, so let it lie.
B|6.28.09 @ 9:07PM|#
"From listening to Senator Inhofe, I also gather that men walked
with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago."
And from reading shit from you, I gather that you like to write
shit that has absolutely no fucking bearing or relevance to the
debate.
The Angry Optimist|6.28.09 @ 9:13PM|#
Frankly, I think pointing out the ignorance of Republicans when
it comes to science is terribly partisan. Do you think that
Democrats actually understand evolution? Do you think they
actually understand global warming?
Or are they, like their counterparts, just being told what they're
supposed to be told?
B|6.28.09 @ 9:16PM|#
"Well, it's not an equal harm to take from those who have a lot
to create opportunity for those who have little..."
Yes, because the government has such an awesome fucking track
record of confiscating people's wealth without it corrupting them
or causing them to fucking waste it, thus necessitating further
confiscation at an increased rate. Seriously, is there ever a time
when you fucking "the government is so super-awesome" assholes
think enough is enough as far as appropriating the fruits of
someone else's labor is concerned?
And there quite a great deal of harm when the government uses its
powers to constantly find new ways to steal from people, regardless
of how swell and keen a bunch of "progressives" think it is.
B|6.28.09 @ 9:17PM|#
I pointed out the stupidity of the retarded quote about dinosaurs because it has no fucking bearing, at all, on the likelihood this bill will pass.
B|6.28.09 @ 9:20PM|#
And Harry Reid has already indicated the chances of the House bill passing the Senate are about the same as the likelihood Al Gore will hold his electric bill below $5000 this month.
MNG|6.28.09 @ 10:41PM|#
Uhh, actually you don't, as I explained @ 8:05...
"Do you think that Democrats actually understand evolution? Do you
think they actually understand global warming?"
Probably not. I'm betting neither do you (no Law of Natural
Selection courses at the law school I imagine). Difference? The
Dems trust the experts in that area, the GOP trusts the priests, or
as the beloved Rand would say, the "Witch Doctors."
Now liberals have their own blind spots to science (such as IQ
research findings). But that Inohofe, he's one dumb cracker
motherfucker! If you are on his side on any scientific controversy,
watch out!
|6.28.09 @ 11:32PM|#
Fluffy, in broad principle I agree with your 7:51 post.
But, I just can't get past the idea that if you're my neighbor and
you want to build right up to my property line you're
going to have to step onto my property to either lay block
or place concrete forms (which - being of non-zero-dimension - must
necessarily encroach onto my property (which in the
"perfect libertarian" world will require me to shoot your
ass).
Sorry, old boy, in dealing with me, you're dealing here with the
lethal combination of a law school dropout (who learned just enough
to be dangerous), a surveyor who decided he did not want to
practice Land Surveying and someone who has done engineering for
forty-plus years and knows a thing or two about how you build
stuff.
The fact of the matter is that building in an urban environment
requires endless agreements and easements and rights of entry and
conflicts about subsurface rights and air rights and rights to
light and shade and God only knows what else. City Councils and the
like create "shortcuts" through this with various ordinances to
determine how this is done. Like the gasoline tax this is a les
than perfect proxy for how things would be done in
libertopia.
Life is much simpler in the country or the suburbs when once you
have settled where the fence line should be you're done.
Property law, and practice, is nowhere near as simple as you seem
to think it is.
I'm guessing you're one of them fellas that believes in
libertopia.
Sorry, son, like all the other utopias, it don't
exist.
|6.28.09 @ 11:41PM|#
B at 9:20 PM
"And Harry Reid has already indicated the chances of the
House bill passing the Senate are about the same as the likelihood
Al Gore will hold his electric bill below $5000 this
month."
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/al_gore_energy.htm
after combining both gas and electric, and using the energy
intensive time period when the remodeling took place, Al Gore's
monthly energy bill was around $2500. I am confident that now that
the remodeling is done his monthly bill is less than that, and is
less than from before the remodeling took place.
So by your witch-doctory methodology, the bill will pass. [friendly
sarcasm] Damn you to hell heathen! [/friendly sarcasm]
|6.29.09 @ 1:01AM|#
If property owners actually had liberty, suburbia would not
exist.
I frequently see densification fanatics assert that, but it's
fact-free. I can put land use restrictions in the deed that run
with the land. That's how "zoning" is accomplished in "no zoning"
Houston. The developer creates deed restrictions that forbid your
neighbor from converting his single family house into an office
tower.
Brett Stevens|6.29.09 @ 2:30AM|#
Climate change is the red herring.
The real environmental problem is overpopulation and completely
reckless pollution.
No amount of government is going to change that. We need to breed
more thoughtful people, who don't just huck their trash out the
window and assume it vanishes without consequence at that
point.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 7:59AM|#
As for "subsidies" received by highways, the gas tax for a
long time acted as a proxy for a user fee for roads. To make a case
that highways are getting subsidies you would have to account for
the huge diversion of gas tax revenue to mass transit.
The key words here are "has for a long time". Yes, the gas tax has
for a long time paid for the operation and maintence costs of
roads. But it did NOT pay for their original construction....and
that is a utterly massive subsidy. The purchase of land and primary
construction (bridges, tunnels, leveling hills, etc) is much more
expensive than repaving it every ten years.
That's why I disagree with you and Angry Optimist. You seem to not
realize that you want to compare road O&M costs with train
O&M+construction costs. Trains would win a huge share if the
government built them with public money and they only had to
recover O&M at the ticket booth, just like the highway
system.
Additionally, local roads are almost completely subsidized as
well.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 8:02AM|#
Bob Smith | June 29, 2009, 1:01am | #
If property owners actually had liberty, suburbia would not
exist.
I frequently see densification fanatics assert that, but it's
fact-free. I can put land use restrictions in the deed that run
with the land. That's how "zoning" is accomplished in "no zoning"
Houston. The developer creates deed restrictions that forbid your
neighbor from converting his single family house into an office
tower.
Actually, I have no idea what would happen if we were to scrape the
country flat, allow it to regrow into its natural state for a 100
years, and then re-settle it knowing what we know now, or under
this form of government or that.
What I do know is that without this reset, what we already have
strongly affects what we build in the future. Therefore, simply
adopting the "right" form of government will not solve the problem,
because the legacies of the old failed policies will remain.
robc|6.29.09 @ 8:28AM|#
But it did NOT pay for their original construction....and
that is a utterly massive subsidy.
The original roads werent subsidized, they were built by the people
who wanted them. Even in the 20th century.
The road to my grandparents farm was built by my grandfather and
the other farmers in the hollow in KY my Mom is from. She says that
after farming each day, they would go to the bluff with pick axes
and hack away until the built enough room between the river and the
bluff to put in a road. It was purely privately built.
Now, later on, the county and then the state took over maintenance
of the road, but ORIGINALLY, it was built by those who wanted it.
Also, Happy Chandler turned them all into democrats forever by
buying them a bridge to connect the road to the rest of the
world.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 8:45AM|#
robc | June 29, 2009, 8:28am | #
But it did NOT pay for their original construction....and that is a
utterly massive subsidy.
The original roads werent subsidized, they were built by the people
who wanted them. Even in the 20th century.
Yes, rob. Most of our straight, flat, wide roads were orginally
built by random farmers. I think the little two-track cleared by
your grandpa is just a wee bit different than I-65.
The buying and shaping of the land, and the building of the major
infrastructure like bridges and tunnel are the primary cost of any
transportation system. Our current road system largely did not pay
this cost, as these things were either obtained by fiat or
purchased with tax dollars.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 9:01AM|#
In case no one caught it, Chad's 8:02 post is basically saying "blame it on the guys before me". You're taking perfect cues from Dear Leader, Chad.
|6.29.09 @ 9:08AM|#
Chad is, as usual, quite wrong. The gas tax was used to finance
highway construction. It has fallen short in more recent years but
at one time there was enough revenue for it to be routinely raided
for general revenue purposes. And, of course, it is raided today to
subsidize mass transit, making it's shortfall even worse.
It is also worth noting that the railroads got huge subsidies in
the form a land grants. Every other Section for ten miles on each
side of the line generated huge revenues for the railroads.
|6.29.09 @ 9:11AM|#
TAO
It also reveals him as a utopian.
He really believes that with the right people in charge, there will
never be any bad outcomes (by his definition) for anyone, anywhere,
ever.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 9:43AM|#
Isaac Bartram | June 29, 2009, 9:08am | #
Chad is, as usual, quite wrong. The gas tax was used to finance
highway construction. It has fallen short in more recent years but
at one time there was enough revenue for it to be routinely raided
for general revenue purposes. And, of course, it is raided today to
subsidize mass transit, making it's shortfall even
worse.
As usual, you just don't get it. The highway system doesn't even
pay for itself today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
About 70% of the construction and maintenance costs of
highways in the U.S. are covered through user fees (net of
collection costs), primarily gasoline taxes collected by the
federal government and state and local governments, and to a much
lesser extent tolls collected on toll roads and bridges. The rest
of the costs are borne by general fund receipts, bond issues, and
designated property and other taxes.
Back in the 50's it was even less. But that's not my point. The
highway system was built largely on already existing roads,
especially in urban areas where the costs are extreme. In many
cases, it did not pay for the core infrastructure or land, which is
an enormous expense. Just try to build a new expressway in an urban
or suburban area now. The numbers fly into the billions in a hurry,
just like new train lines.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 9:46AM|#
The Angry Optimist | June 29, 2009, 9:01am | #
In case no one caught it, Chad's 8:02 post is basically saying
"blame it on the guys before me". You're taking perfect cues from
Dear Leader, Chad.
A lot of "those guys" are people like you, who believe that their
little logic game has meaning in the real world, where their
assumptions are false.
robc|6.29.09 @ 10:12AM|#
The initial state bonds for I-65 in KY were paid for with
tolls.
Doesnt mean there werent subsidies to the roads too, but the
primary construction wasnt subsidized. Well, probably not
much.
But, I opposed (from the distant future) the Ike Interstate System
anyway.
robc|6.29.09 @ 10:14AM|#
Chad,
You made an absolute statement, I found the counterexample to
disprove it.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 10:19AM|#
Chad, I'll ask again: what is your point? From this point
forward, we have many options, but you seem to precluding all of
those options but one: heavily subsidize rail (to make up for the
"inequities" of the past, as if railroads are people and they need
reparations or something) and ignore/stifle/neglect roads and road
maintenance.
This is not a decent model for moving forward. Like I've offered
you, if you want to work together to end subsidies to both of
these, that's a point where we can agree. Right now, you have
tunnel-vision to the point where you want to blame the fact that,
even IF you got all of the programs and politicians and funding you
wanted, you STILL want to blame people like me! ME! I had no idea I
was standing in the way of our EnlightenedRailUtopia, Chad.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 10:49AM|#
robc | June 29, 2009, 10:12am | #
The initial state bonds for I-65 in KY were paid for with
tolls.
While I don't know the specifics of that particular stretch of
expressway and can't find details online, you can be rest assured
that most of the route was built on existing roads, expecially in
urban areas. The bonds you cited were to upgrade and widen the
road, which is a lot cheaper than starting from scratch.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 10:54AM|#
The Angry Optimist | June 29, 2009, 10:19am | #
This is not a decent model for moving forward. Like I've offered
you, if you want to work together to end subsidies to both of
these, that's a point where we can agree.
In principle, yes. In practice, it will never happen. That's why I
keep suggesting that you quit wasting your time worrying about a
world that will never be. The reality is there will always be tons
of subsidies. Spend your energy directing them to ideas that make
sense. Trying to extend the fossil fuel society for a few more
years is not one of these.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 10:57AM|#
whatever. you have this bizzaro belief that everything is
subsidized, so it is therefore OK to engage in society-level
central-planning. your facts on the former are wrong, and your
morals on the latter are as a result.
but, fine, rail doesn't make sense in a country this kind of
low-level density. Rail makes profit in one place in the United
States: the Northeastern corridor from Boston-D.C., and even then
it only makes profits because of its frequent stops and it takes
eight-hours on the standard line to get between the terminal
points. Amtrak tried a direct BosWash route, and it failed. Rail
works like buses work: slowly, with lots of stops in high-density
areas. A massive rail program for America makes as much sense as a
massive bus program for Kansas.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 11:04AM|#
here. Not coincidentally, the only place rail has even come
close to making a profit is the corridor of Dark Blue states.
The United States has a lower average density than Missouri. A rail
project is not only a massive boondoggle, but it doesn't make sense
from *any* perspective.
|6.29.09 @ 11:07AM|#
you can be rest assured that most of the route was built on existing roads,
No you can't.
Thousands of miles of new rights of way had to be acquired for the
interstates.
And where they were built on existing corridors additional right of
way had to be bought to bring the width up to the three hundred
foot or greater width required for an interstate.
Acquiring right of way has become the bigest single expense in road
construction today.
On the other hand railroads aquired almost all the rights of way
they own today in the 1800s (along with the millions of additional
acres from the land grants).
Not only do you not know what you're talking about half the time
but you but you mischaracterize what everyone else says.
Kind of a waste of time.
|6.29.09 @ 11:10AM|#
"Not only do you not know what you're talking about half the
time but you but you mischaracterize what everyone else
says."
So Chad is the new joe?
Chad|6.29.09 @ 11:31AM|#
Isaac Bartram | June 29, 2009, 11:07am | #
you can be rest assured that most of the route was built on
existing roads,
No you can't.
Thousands of miles of new rights of way had to be acquired for the
interstates. And where they were built on existing corridors
additional right of way had to be bought to bring the width up to
the three hundred foot or greater width required for an
interstate.
Some was already existing, some wasn't. It didn't pay for what was
already there.
Acquiring right of way has become the bigest single expense in
road construction today.
The same is true of train systems, which is why they are so
expensive. NEW rail vs NEW roads is a fair comparison. Any
substantial change to a road in an urban area costs a
fortune.
This all reminds me of the difference between kinetic and
thermodynamic equilibrium from your chemistry class. Take, for
example, diamonds and graphite. Graphite is the lower energy
substance, and given a few tens of billions of years, diamonds will
decay into graphite. The reason it takes so long is that the
transitional forms between diamond and graphite are so high energy
that almost nothing ever goes there. Hence, a diamond stays a
diamond practically forever.
The same holds true in economics, which is highly path dependant.
It is often far easier to search for the locally optimal situation
that it is to break through a high barrier to an even more optimal
situation. Often, these barriers can be insurmountable for even
large firms, as either the price is outside their scope or the
political resistance too tough.
Remember, even the biggest capital investments by our biggest firms
amount to a few billion dollars. Solving this issue would require a
few hundred billion dollars every year.
|6.29.09 @ 12:15PM|#
Solving this issue would require a few hundred billion
dollars every year.
Sounds like the cure is worse than the disease.
|6.29.09 @ 12:16PM|#
About 70% of the construction and maintenance costs of
highways in the U.S. are covered through user fees (net of
collection costs), primarily gasoline taxes collected by the
federal government and state and local governments
I'd bet that easily 1/3 of gas tax is diverted to mass transit.
Stop that and 100% of construction and maintenance costs are paid
by user fees.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 12:41PM|#
Bob Smith | June 29, 2009, 12:16pm | #
About 70% of the construction and maintenance costs of highways in
the U.S. are covered through user fees (net of collection costs),
primarily gasoline taxes collected by the federal government and
state and local governments
I'd bet that easily 1/3 of gas tax is diverted to mass transit.
Stop that and 100% of construction and maintenance costs are paid
by user fees.
You know, you could bother to follow the link. Then you would know
that you would be making a losing bet. 13% of that 70% is diverted,
the other 57% used for roads. So the 70% figure already includes
the diversion.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 12:44PM|#
R C Dean | June 29, 2009, 12:15pm | #
Solving this issue would require a few hundred billion dollars
every year.
Sounds like the cure is worse than the disease.
The "disease" includes tens or hundreds of billions in health care
costs, hundreds of billions sent to our enemies in exchange for
black goo, and tens or hundreds of billions spent defending black
goo supplies. Look, I don't even need to invoke polar bears to show
how much worse the disease is.
|6.29.09 @ 1:12PM|#
Chad,
Can you provide an example anywhere in the world where rail
competes economically with roads on an even footing (without
subsidies or legacy effects)?
I'm not hostile to your argument in theory. I just need to see some
positive evidence that it is viable in practice.
(BTW, this is the same standard I apply to anarcho-capitalists who
are convinced that society without a government could work just
fine, if we'd only try it.)
Chad|6.29.09 @ 1:19PM|#
Russ R. | June 29, 2009, 1:12pm | #
Chad,
Can you provide an example anywhere in the world where rail
competes economically with roads on an even footing (without
subsidies or legacy effects)?
No such place exists, no such place will ever exist, and nobody has
any good idea of what would happen if such a place existed. Which
is why it is pointless to speculate about what would happen in such
a scenario.
However, the rail system in Japan would probably be the closest
system to what you are asking. It is largely privately owned,
profitable, and has relatively minimal subsidies. Japan also
subsidizes roads less than the US, through higher tolls and fuel
taxes.
There is no reason we couldn't nor shouldn't have a similar train
system running up and down the coasts and along other major
population corridors.
|6.29.09 @ 1:44PM|#
You know, you could bother to follow the link. Then you
would know that you would be making a losing bet. 13% of that 70%
is diverted, the other 57% used for roads. So the 70% figure
already includes the diversion.
A whole bunch of revenue is being hidden here as general fund
dollars: licensing fees, registration fees, and sales taxes on
fuel, vehicle sales, and service. I've never seen a proper analysis
of it. You would think that, in analyzing alleged subsidies of
roads (and by extension drivers), such revenue would be important,
yet it is always ignored. My usual presumption in such cases is
that's intentional, the author's claims would wither otherwise.
|6.29.09 @ 1:46PM|#
"...the rail system in Japan would probably be the closest
system to what you are asking... There is no reason we couldn't nor
shouldn't have a similar train system running up and down the
coasts and along other major population corridors.
Based on what little I know about the Japanese model, the closest
US equivalent would be the Acela route. AFAIK, Acela is a long way
from being profitable (though I think it may stand a chance in the
future if fuel prices rise substantially, and Amtrak ever gets its
managerial act together).
I could envision another possible route from Northern to Southern
California, but based on the economics of the current proposal, it
looks like an huge loser at present (again, it could stand a chance
in the future if a few key variables change).
As for the rest of the country, it looks nothing like Japan, and a
lot more like Canada (where I live), with huge unpopulated
distances separating remote urban centers, clearly favouring air
travel.
|6.29.09 @ 1:50PM|#
There is no reason we couldn't nor shouldn't have a similar
train system running up and down the coasts and along other major
population corridors.
Trains are an insane way to move people. They're slow, they're
amazingly expensive, and they pollute a lot more than cars
do.
Aircraft need zero infrastructure between destinations. That's
billions of dollars we don't need to spend on track and right of
way.
|6.29.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Evidence (from Canada) that rail can't beat air travel over long
distances...
Take, for example, a round trip from Toronto to Edmonton (very much
the equivalent of going from New York to Denver).
A regular economy round-trip train ticket costs C$1173.90
(excluding meals) and requires 4 days, 18 hours and 23 mins of
total travel time.
A comparable (regular economy) round-trip air ticket costs C$675.50
(excluding meals) and requires 7 hours and 41 minutes of total
travel time.
In this real-world example, rail costs 75% more and takes nearly 15
times longer to get you to and from your destination.
It doesn't matter how high fuel prices go, or how fast your bullet
train travels... every normal, time-constrained person I know is
going to hop on a flight rather than riding the rails.
And for the record, this isn't a case of the air travel cost being
artificially low due to subsidies... Air Canada is actually
overpriced because the Canadian government restricts competition on
domestic routes, whereas, ViaRail has no legacy costs (the track
was built in the 1800's) and is the beneficiary of substantial
direct government subsidies.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 2:06PM|#
every liberal fetishizes New York, but most New York residents will be glad to tell you that there are maybe five other cities that are that "vertical" in the entire world (Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai...). Do not extrapolate NY verticalness to the rest of the nation, please.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 2:52PM|#
Bob Smith | June 29, 2009, 1:44pm | #
A whole bunch of revenue is being hidden here as general fund
dollars: licensing fees, registration fees, and sales taxes on
fuel, vehicle sales, and service. I've never seen a proper analysis
of it. You would think that, in analyzing alleged subsidies of
roads (and by extension drivers), such revenue would be important,
yet it is always ignored. My usual presumption in such cases is
that's intentional, the author's claims would wither
otherwise.
What about the fact that land near expressways drops in value? Or
the fact that land near train stations increases in value? We can
go down these rabbit holes until the end of time.
Most of the things that you listed are state issues. States rarely,
if ever, bring in as much revenue from things like registration
fees as they spend on roads. For example, I just checked the data
for my home state, and I found about $3 billion in road spending
and $1 billion in vehicle related taxes. This doesn't include sales
taxes, though, because I could only guess as to what portion of the
sales tax is related to vehicles. At most that adds another
billion. Note that this doesn't include local spending, which is
largly via property tax.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 2:58PM|#
Russ R. | June 29, 2009, 1:46pm | #
Based on what little I know about the Japanese model, the closest
US equivalent would be the Acela route. AFAIK, Acela is a long way
from being profitable (though I think it may stand a chance in the
future if fuel prices rise substantially, and Amtrak ever gets its
managerial act together).
Well, fuel prices WILL rise substantially. Anyone who thinks
otherwise is crazy (and a sucker...want to make some bets?). Peak
oil very well may have happened last July, btw. Be prepared.
I could envision another possible route from Northern to
Southern California, but based on the economics of the current
proposal, it looks like an huge loser at present (again, it could
stand a chance in the future if a few key variables
change).
The proposed CA system is putting the cart before the horse. The
feeder systems should have priority. When a third or half of the
residents of LA and SF are using public transit to get to work (as
it should be), a high speed train connecting these two feeder
networks is obvious. Unfortunately, the LA system is completely
inadequate, and SF's mediocre even for America.
As for the rest of the country, it looks nothing like Japan,
and a lot more like Canada (where I live), with huge unpopulated
distances separating remote urban centers, clearly favouring air
travel.
I agree. In the medium-term future, air will beat rail at these
distances. With $10/gallon aviation fuel, perhaps not.
|6.29.09 @ 4:16PM|#
The "disease" includes tens or hundreds of billions in
health care costs,
Speculative at best, especially if you are claiming that the 1 - 2
degree C increase forecast by the IPCC will cause that much of an
increase in health care.
hundreds of billions sent to our enemies in exchange for black
goo,
Money that will only be spent so long as it is the best economic
use of that money, hence, not, on net, a cost.
and tens or hundreds of billions spent defending black goo
supplies.
This, perhaps, is a second-order cost of using carbon fuel that can
be legitimately set against the costs of subsidizing non-carbon
fuels. However, I'm wondering how much we have actually spent to
date defending overseas oil? We haven't fought any wars over it
that I can think of, except, perhaps, Kuwait. Iraq wasn't fought
over oil; it was fought over fictitious WMDs, remember? Afghanistan
has no oil.
No matter who runs the oil-producing countries, they will sell
their oil into the world market, after all, just like the Iranians
do and Saddam did.
So I'm really not seeing where we have, or why we would, spend
kajillions defending oil supplies.
|6.30.09 @ 1:47AM|#
What about the fact that land near expressways drops in
value? Or the fact that land near train stations increases in
value
The latter isn't a fact, it's claim made by central planners in
order to sell "transit-oriented development". If being near a train
station was so desirable, Portland developers wouldn't have any
trouble selling "transit friendly" housing. The funny thing is, it
isn't selling. A central planner being wrong, imagine that.
When a third or half of the residents of LA and SF are using
public transit to get to work (as it should be),
Should is a dangerous word. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
Chad's desire to force others to live as he thinks they should.
|6.30.09 @ 1:52AM|#
So I'm really not seeing where we have, or why we would,
spend kajillions defending oil supplies.
The defense should have been done when oil-producing Muslim
countries sent in their armies to steal the oil production
facilities our companies spent billions (in today's dollars) to
create. That oil wasn't an asset until we made it so. If they want
to take over when the leases expire, so be it, but until then
wholesale theft of our citizen's assets should not be
tolerated.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245