Gingrich on cap and trade

[heckofajobbrownie]

This week: It's a "command-and-control, anti-energy, big-bureaucracy agenda, including dramatic increases in government power and draconian policies that will devastate our economy."

 

In 2007: "I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's very, very good. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support....The caps, with a trading system, on sulfur has worked brilliantly because it has brought free-market attitudes, entrepreneurship and technology and made it very profitable to have less sulfur."

 

 

[We need Tom Tupa]

This week: It's a "command-and-control, anti-energy, big-bureaucracy agenda, including dramatic increases in government power and draconian policies that will devastate our economy."

 

In 2007: "I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's very, very good. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support....The caps, with a trading system, on sulfur has worked brilliantly because it has brought free-market attitudes, entrepreneurship and technology and made it very profitable to have less sulfur."

 

I doubt I'll find a sound byte that resolves this for us, but I think the apparent conflict here almost completely disappears if you listen to what he's been saying for the past 5 years or so. He supports hard caps on carbon, but only as part of an energy policy that frees up coal, nuclear and oil, and gives back most or all of the tax revenue as "innovation incentives." He makes this point in a roundabout way in today's testimony by harping on the huge net tax increase and commenting that, "The policies needed to expand all of America's energy resources, from oil to natural gas to the use of coal to nuclear to renewables such as ethanol, solar and wind to new breakthroughs such as hydrogen, are not in this bill."

 

Like many conservatives, he is for something close to a revenue neutral cap and trade system. The bill he was testifying on today is projected to bring in hundreds of billions in tax revenue.

 

I'm not a huge Gingrich fan, and I disagree with much of his approach to energy policy. But those quotes are not the quotes of a man disagreeing with himself due to partisanship or political maneuvering or whatever Media Matters, Kevin Drum, Reason, etc are hopping around about.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, come on now. You don't see a man running for president here?

 

Suddenly something that "brought free-market attitudes, entrepreneurship and technology" before has turned into every conservative buzzword: "command-and-control", "big-bureaucracy agenda", "government power". He's talking about the same policy in completely different terms - one he used to believe, and one he now realizes he must repeat for his new audience. And then he threw in a bunch of shots at Al Gore, radical environmentalists, etc. That was mostly a political speech.

 

He had nothing good to say about the idea anymore. He wasn't saying, "This is the right approach, but I think we should look to offset the costs here, here, and here." He's saying nothing in its defense.

 

And if you look at his plan in detail, it's no longer about cap and trade. It's a zillion different tax incentives for things he think we should have, none of which price carbon emissions higher. It's incentives for going after shale in Colorado, drilling in ANWR, adding nuclear, giving tax credits to wind and solar, or pushing the carbon sequestration dream. (Apparently that's not going to cost the taxpayers anything.)

 

It's not a plan to address global warming at all. It's a plan to increase energy production in the US, and has Washington decide which sources deserve tax incentives.

 

And then he rails about Washington bureaucracies and their agendas.

 

I know you're not a big fan of these ideas, and I'm not trying to make you defend them. But I'm sure you can see the political calculus here. After all, it's in neon lights.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, but he does talk about distributing the benefits of drilling.

 

Maybe I'm missing something. I just skimmed his testimony. But it just made me wonder what he was doing up there.

[Westside Steve]

If you're running for POTUS it's usually not a good idea to side with the other faction.

It cost McCain more than a little support.

And Lieberman.

 

But the acid rain problem and any "global" one are pretty different.

It's not like there are any Chinese factories just south of the soo.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

And if someone was contending that global warming and acid rain were the same problem you might even have a point.

 

Honestly, how long do you think you can raise the point about China and India? I think we covered that years ago. Yes, an agreement needs to involve China and India, as well as a whole bunch of other countries. That's why we're now meeting with China and India and a whole bunch of other countries about getting an agreement on global warming.

 

I know you and John Boehner think saying "China and India" every time global warming is raised is a devastating critique, but believe me, it's not.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

And if someone was contending that global warming and acid rain were the same problem you might even have a point.

 

You mean like repeatedly throwing the acid rain problem up as proof cap and trade works?

Yeah I guess so.

 

Honestly, how long do you think you can raise the point about China and India? I think we covered that years ago. Yes, an agreement needs to involve China and India, as well as a whole bunch of other countries. That's why we're now meeting Wow!!!! with China and India and a whole bunch of other countries about getting an agreement on global warming.

 

I guess as long as you make the same old threadbare arguments you'll get the same answers.

Acid rain had nothing to do with China.

That's why if some US companies changed their production methods a regional problem was helped.

See if Michigan Pa and New York refused to go along Ohio winds up the chump......

 

Now for the "Huh??"

 

I know you and John Boehner think saying "China and India" every time global warming is raised is a devastating critique, but believe me, it's not.

 

Not to you and Al Gore.

 

(now get all huffy that I mentioned Gore.

Then repeat Boehner a few more times.)

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

The case of acid rain is an indication that a government-run cap and trade system can be effective, yes. How is that the same thing as saying that acid rain and global warming are the same problem? Again, if someone were claiming that these were the same problem you might have a point, but there isn't anyone doing that, so you don't.

 

Let me try it this way:

 

The polio vaccine involves injecting a harmless inactive form of the disease into you so that your body can build up antibodies to it. Maybe this idea would also work on swine flu.

 

That isn't saying that polio and swine flu are the same thing.

 

Again, don't fault me because you can't make distinctions. That's your problem.

 

And then you're on to stating that acid rain has nothing to do with China. Again, if someone were claiming that this was the case you might have a point. But there isn't, so you don't.

 

Nor does your example of a regional firm changing make any sense. Why would a firm in Ohio change how it produces other than to save money?

 

Who is suggesting that firms in Ohio must change, but not firms in Michigan or New York? Aren't we discussing a nationwide cap and trade plan within an international framework? I thought we were.

 

What are you talking about?

[heckofajobbrownie]

As for Drum, I thought this was spot on, Tupa:

 

"But it also goes to show how fleeting conservative support for "market-oriented solutions" like cap-and trade is. A lot of the liberal enthusiasm for cap-and-trade over the past decade has been based on the idea that it might be more acceptable to conservatives than a straight tax, but obviously that hasn't turned out to be the case. Basically, they just don't want to do anything, full stop."

 

Unless you can find more than a handful of conservatives who want to address this problem. I can think of McCain and ...McCain.

[We need Tom Tupa]

As for Drum, I thought this was spot on, Tupa:

 

"But it also goes to show how fleeting conservative support for "market-oriented solutions" like cap-and trade is. A lot of the liberal enthusiasm for cap-and-trade over the past decade has been based on the idea that it might be more acceptable to conservatives than a straight tax, but obviously that hasn't turned out to be the case. Basically, they just don't want to do anything, full stop."

 

Unless you can find more than a handful of conservatives who want to address this problem. I can think of McCain and ...McCain.

 

You know you aren't going to bait me into defending the current elected Republicans. They do make easy targets for guys like Drum, don't they? But let's pretend Congress was full of smart Republicans (you can even pretend that smart Dems got elected too); you'll find a host of conservative economists in Mankiw's "Pigou Club" that are as committed as ever to taxing carbon but won't be happy with the bill Gingrich was giving testimony on today. There is something like $1 trillion difference between this plan and the revenue-neutral alternative. It isnt a "full stop" that theyre looking for, but something smarter than what is being proposed. The current bill is about as close to intelligent tax policy as Rumsfeld's Iraq campaign was to intelligent war strategy. At least it will match it in shock and awe. (that's a huge exaggeration, but it sounded so good to me).

 

Of course, given Obama's campaign promise to not raise taxes on any but the richest of the rich, I'll wager that you won't have to struggle to find Dems opposing the bill either.

[SiperBowl]

carbon caps within a free market approach will create an increase in costs of energy. period!!

 

The marketplace forces of supply and demand will determine the price of energy. And the greed from wall street traders will use anything to escalate the costs to achieve higher profits.

 

Im sorry but this is bad for all of us, all one has to do is look back a year ago how the price of sweet crude sky rocketed and everybody was paying nearly $4 to $5 a gallon of gas. Now look what that has done to our economy. Businesses cant operate with escalating fuel costs and just keep eating them while creating a loss, at some point businesses have to raise prices to recover or let go of workers. that is where we are today major layoffs that may become permanent while these companies are struggling to stay a float and now we have the Obama Adm. wanting to tax and regulate everything.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Oh, come on now. You don't see a man running for president here?

 

I know you're not a big fan of these ideas, and I'm not trying to make you defend them. But I'm sure you can see the political calculus here. After all, it's in neon lights.

 

I'm trying to convince myself that there is no chance in hell Gingrich could be a presidential candidate. I am blind to lights of any type.

 

I havent read his new book (and dont plan to), but the gas prices of 2008 could account for his shift in energy focus away from carbon mitigation towards energy independence.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Maybe letting the revenue offset in places is going to be part of the eventual give that gets votes on the other side. I just don't know where those votes would be coming from. Where's the reward for a Republican Senator to go along with this, other than maybe the two from Maine?

 

I'm just spit-balling here. But it seems like it'd be an easy place to compromise, and the right place.

 

Not that we don't need the revenue.

[Mr. T]

I'm trying to convince myself that there is no chance in hell Gingrich could be a presidential candidate. I am blind to lights of any type.

 

I havent read his new book (and dont plan to), but the gas prices of 2008 could account for his shift in energy focus away from carbon mitigation towards energy independence.

 

Gingrich wouldn't stand a chance of becoming the next prez. Not to many republicans like him, he is to liberal and a big $pender. Maybe not as much as Obama and the Dems like to $pend , but he is to close to the middle and to hard to define as a real conservative.

 

Dont worry after 2 years of Obama missery everyone will start looking for a new prez.

[Westside Steve]

The case of acid rain is an indication that a government-run cap and trade system can be effective, yes. How is that the same thing as saying that acid rain and global warming are the same problem? Again, if someone were claiming that these were the same problem you might have a point, but there isn't anyone doing that, so you don't.

Yes Heck. You're doing it.

Specifically you are using a regional example to "prove" a worldwide and international solution is workable.

Well, rationally workable, which I don't think it is.

 

Let me try it this way:

 

The polio vaccine involves injecting a harmless inactive form of the disease into you so that your body can build up antibodies to it. Maybe this idea would also work on swine flu.

 

That isn't saying that polio and swine flu are the same thing.

 

Who cares? Your "analogy" isn't close. Again I'm talking regional V worldwide.

 

(not to mention your position is "it worked for pinkeye it will work for aids.)

 

Again, don't fault me because you can't make distinctions. That's your problem.

 

No Heck. The problem is that you're wrong about the comparison. And since you have some sort of animosity toward "the right" or me or whatever you revert to bicker mode.

 

And then you're on to stating that acid rain has nothing to do with China. Again, if someone were claiming that this was the case you might have a point. But there isn't, so you don't.

 

 

 

 

Nor does your example of a regional firm changing make any sense. Why would a firm in Ohio change how it produces other than to save money?

 

Since you're either playing stupid or ....

Anyway let's make it simpler for you.

US industry caused regional acid rain in Canada basically due to high sulphur output.

US firms made a change.

If ONLY Ohio (NOT Mi Pa or NY) had made that change the problem wouldn't have been improved.

Global warming is a worldwide "problem" that will require that ALL countries participate.

See how easy it is?

 

Who is suggesting that firms in Ohio must change, but not firms in Michigan or New York? Aren't we discussing a nationwide cap and trade plan within an international framework? I thought we were.

 

See above.

With acid rain US firms are affected.

With GW cap and trade it's worldwide and unless every industrialized nation is on board it can't work.

 

What are you talking about?

 

You know what I'm talking about.

 

1 You don't even know what Obama's plan will look like, but you pimp it and rail at anyone who sees fault with the basic idea.

 

2 Even you admit that whatever plan he comes up with will need strong international support.

That especially includes EVERY major manufacturer.

 

3 Even you admit it's a big tax and the extra cost will affect every American.

You're happy with the increased tax burden whether the plan works or not.

 

4 You admit it's a big risk and relies on "talks" convincing our competition to make sacrifices to their economies.

 

All this even before we get to the projected danger of warming.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's not my animosity towards you, Steve. It's that your attacks are never on point and don't make any logical sense, then I point out where they don't, and then you insist that they do, and then I point out how they don't, and then you change the subject, and around and around we go.

 

It's pointless. I mean, after asking you try move on from the already well-established point that this needs to be a worldwide effort, you excreted another long bogus post, the conclusion of which was "Global warming is a worldwide "problem" that will require that ALL countries participate."

 

See what I mean?

 

I also think you're under the impression that cap and trade needs to be a global system, rather than letting individual regions or countries meet their CO2 reduction goals in different ways. For instance, Europe already has a cap and trade system. We don't. Asia doesn't. What the international agreements call for is a cap and trade system for what's called "Annex 1" countries, which are industrialized nations, but it's really more of a cap, letting nations use a variety of ways to get to their emissions reductions goals, trading emission permits being one.

 

Maybe you should tell Europe all the problems you've discovered about regional approaches, and how they're only going to ship all their jobs overseas this way.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Question for Toop and Heck,

How is todays version of cap and trade or energy credits different from the Clinton years program of this?

 

Furthermore had Bush not discontinued this would we still be worried about this issue or would we be further along with alternative fuels and any closer to energy independance?

 

Certainly this would still be an issue. It's going to be an issue for decades no matter what we do. What the Bush administration did was delay action for eight years, making the problem even more intractable than it already is.

 

As for the Clinton administration, they made headway on international agreements, but never really put anything into action.

[calfoxwc]

All I get from reading Heck's "ignore Obama's screwups at all costs"...

 

is that he thinks acid rain is caused by solar flares, must like global warming.

 

Heck needs a vacation - he can't handle the race to try to come out

 

ahead of Steve.

 

Heck: Don't be a bub, bub.

[Westside Steve]

As for the Clinton administration, they made headway on international agreements, but never really put anything into action.

 

Actually telling "the world" to stick Kyoto where the rising sun don't shine was a good move.

 

WSS

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

This is good reading.

 

The Department of Energy is at the center of U.S. efforts to end our dependence on foreign oil, roll back climate change and create new jobs. Fareed Zakaria sat down last week with the department's new head, Nobel physicist Steven Chu, at NEWSWEEK's Energy Independence 2020 Forum Luncheon to talk about smart grids, solar panels and more. Excerpts:

 

Zakaria: Skeptics say there's still conflicting evidence on global warming.

Chu: I urge everyone to do this: Google the 2007 IPCC report. The 100-year trend is unmistakable. The first thing to emphasize is don't get excited about one or two years. It's just like you should not get excited that one very bad hurricane is evidence there's global warming.

 

Can we really prevent global warming? Or should we be thinking more about adaptation? Building coastal fortifications may be cheaper than halting the release of CO2.

Right now, the climate scientists feel that if all humans shut off carbon emissions today, it will still glide up by about 1 degree centigrade. In the business-as-usual scenarios, Nicholas Stern says there's a 50 percent chance we may go to 5 degrees centigrade. We know what the Earth was like 5 or 6 degrees centigrade colder. That was called the Ice Ages. Imagine a world 5 degrees warmer. The desert lines would be dramatically changed. The West is projected to be in drought conditions. And certain tipping points might be triggered. We can adapt to 1 or 2 degrees. More than that, there is no adaptation strategy.

 

What do you mean by tipping points?

There's lots of carbon in vegetation that has grown and died in the northern tundras of Russia, Canada. Normally what happens when a tree falls and dies is the microbes come and gobble it up and they recycle in terms of carbon dioxide, methane. But in the frozen tundra, those microbes are asleep. So the big fear is that once the tundra thaws, those microbes wake up, they digest all that carbon. It goes up in the atmosphere. At that point, no matter what humans do, it's out of our control. This is the realization in the last decade that has caused many of us to get very, very concerned. Adaptation at 1 or 2 degrees will be painful, it will cause a lot of hurt and pain, but adaptation at 5 or 6 degrees—I'm terribly frightened that that's catastrophic.

 

Aren't we in pretty bad trouble no matter what we do? We're not going to be able to stop burning fossil fuels for quite a while.

We're in the great ship Titanic, the Earth is, and it's going to take a half century to really turn the ship. But that doesn't mean we can't start doing it today, and we must. It's possible that the United States can greatly reduce its use of energy in our buildings, which consume 40 percent of our energy, and our personal vehicles.

 

You're basically talking about insulating buildings and using more fuel-efficient cars?

Well, not only insulating buildings—we haven't taken full advantage of the technologies that exist today. They haven't been integrated into making smarter buildings that can be 60, 80 percent more energy-efficient than existing buildings. But in addition to that, if you were going to ask me, do we have what is needed today to reduce our carbon emissions by 80, 90 percent and still enjoy the standard of living we enjoy, the answer is no. We need better technologies. But I'm pretty confident that we can figure this out. Necessity is the mother of a lot of inventions.

 

Most electricity is generated from coal. How do we get off coal?

We can have renewables. We have nuclear power. During the nighttime when there's less demand for electricity, we'll be plugging our cars into these and charging them up so that that nuclear power can be used in a much better way. Storage technology will be incredibly useful and needed as transient renewables become a larger portion of our energy budget.

 

But they're all more expensive than coal?

That is true. Wind is so far the most competitive. The cost of electricity generation by wind has gone down by almost a factor of 10 in the last two decades. It will continue to go down. What you should talk about is what is the real cost of the energy?

 

There's wind, solar, geothermal. Which technology will get us out of the fossil-fuel trap?

Ultimately, it's going to be some form of solar energy. But as to which technology 20 years and 30 years from now will be the dominant one, I don't know. On that time scale, we have to work on carbon capture and storage. Nuclear energy I think has to be part of the portfolio in this century. And then going back to the other thing: efficiency. We now make refrigerators that are four times more energy-efficient than the refrigerators of 1975—for half the inflation-adjusted cost. The energy we save with these refrigerators is more than all of the wind and solar photovoltaic energy we produce in the United States today. Just refrigerators.

 

Even if the private sector can produce all this alternative energy, you need to get it to the people who need it. How do we rebuild the grid and make it smarter?

What we have today is like what we had in the highway system in 1950. States were responsible for the roads. If you wanted to drive across the country, you would have to wind your way through essentially local roads. And so what President Eisenhower said is that for the sake of national security, we need a national highway system. And today we have one of the best highway systems in the world. [Today] we have local power companies that are regional. No one is really thinking about transmitting energy over 1,000 miles, because that goes out of their domain. So that's why you hear a lot of talk about the need for a much smarter grid system. Ideally, I would think you'd want the private sector to do that, and you adjust the conditions to encourage the private sector to think about a national system.

 

Do you feel like the political struggle is your biggest challenge?

I don't actually think in those terms. Our dependency on foreign oil, our national security, our economic prosperity, and the climate-change issues—these aren't ultimately political questions. This is a way into the 21st century, a way to regain our technological leadership, regain our high- quality manufacturing leadership that we have lost, all of these things, as well as helping save the world.

[calfoxwc]

Interesting, but you miss the point, Heck.

 

It's about taxing current technology because the new

 

super green tech isn't there yet.

 

Americans have always embraced new technology.

 

It's leftist crisis politics and power to tax everything that is

 

driving the frantic hate coal etc, before alternatives are in existence

 

on a society-practical scale.

 

Tax that.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Good idea. Obviously you have a firm grasp of what we're talking about.

[calfoxwc]

Obviously, you don't, if you want cap and trade.

[Westside Steve]

It'd be nice to hear an interview without the softballs......

 

Wouldn't it Heck? Really?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I thought it was a good interview, drawing out his expert opinion on a variety of energy issues. They don't all need to be needlessly confrontational. That's not what Zakaria does.

 

What questions would you like to have asked, should we ban leisure travel? Doesn't Al Gore have a big house? You want to make your single point about China and India one more time?

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Gas prices and venture capital money invested in green technology. Hmm.

 

 

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Zakaria and Obama both have Skull faces and come from Muslim backgrounds. Don't trust either one.

[Guest mz.]

Cal, stuff like this must be the "intelligent discourse" you're craving....

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Cal, stuff like this must be the "intelligent discourse" you're craving....

 

 

Yep. mz the pussy is so intelligent (in his mind). He belongs to the menses society.

[Westside Steve]

I thought it was a good interview, drawing out his expert opinion on a variety of energy issues. They don't all need to be needlessly confrontational. That's not what Zakaria does.

 

What questions would you like to have asked, should we ban leisure travel? Doesn't Al Gore have a big house? You want to make your single point about China and India one more time?

 

Oh no Heck.

I like to hear you beat the same drum over and over and over.

Then huff and puff that I'm wrong though I'm not.

 

Fact is banning leisure travel would do a lot for the environment.

 

But

 

It would be extemely inconvenient annd bad for the economy in many ways.

 

So we must assume global warming is not enough of a threat to bother with it.

 

Tell me which part is wrong Heck.

 

WSS