Heating costs, thread continuation and thoughts:

[Native_NM]

I was reading a thread in the General Forum which reminded me of an article I read a while back.  Since this is really off-topic, I figured I'd post here.  Here is the thread:

http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=9810.0


The article I read discussed the impact cap-and-trade would have on net pollution.  If the proposed surtaxes on coal, natural gas, and electric were passed, economists figured that many people would switch to wood, which is actually quite abundant and cheap. The spreadsheet Mt. Don posted from the Dept. of Engery confirms this.   People choose electric and natural gas because it is convenient and inexpensive.  Proponents of cap-and-trade have targeted electric and gas since it is easy to meter usage and tax.  Since there is no meter or utility bill for wood usage, the government would be unable to tax usage and CO2 output.  Wood is frequently harvested from forest land or purchased from the side of a road in NM.  It is similar in many parts of the country.  There is no taxing agency involved.  Coal stoves are very efficient, and anthracite is very clean burning, in contrast to regular black coal, but it can be taxed at the mining operation in the permitting process.  The economists speculated what might happen if just 15% of a given population chose to burn wood instead of cleaner electric, natural gas or coal.   Remember that there are still millions of old woodstoves that do not have a catalytic element - they determined that the net impact of cap-and-trade (from an environmental standpoint) could easily be negated if enough people switched to wood.   

Newer electric plants are actually quite clean, depending on generation method.  In the pacific NW, for example, there is clean hydro and nuclear power.  If people switched to wood, the net effect on the air quality and CO2 output would actually be worse, as people scrambled to move to a cheaper heating source.  Economics is really nothing more than the study of resource allocation.  It is more behavioral science than math, which the politicians always seem to forget.   Anyone who has owned a business knows that decisions are often made out of economic necessity rather than what is always the smartest or most logical thing to do.  Most families realize this also.  Decisions usually follow the path of least financial resistance, much like water.   Thinking another way, is it easier to capture pollution from one smokestack at a regional coal-fired plant than it is from millions of smokestacks on the roof of every house...hmmm.    If the true goal of cap-and-trade was to eliminate CO2 and pollution, then the government should be talking about subsidizing and LOWERING the cost of cleaner heating sources so that they could compete with less expensive, but dirtier wood and coal.  If there is no net benefit to the environment, then it is really just another revenue stream for the government.

Interesting article and interesting subject. 

[Native_NM]

I bet you thought that if you bought a house, you actually own it and can, with reasonable exceptions, do with it what you want. You probably think that if you want to live in a log cabin, with wood stoves that belch smoke into the air for heat, and an old washer and dryer that don't have those little EnergyStar stickers on them you can because it's your life and your property. You paid for it with money you earned with the sweat of your brow and what the heck is America anyhow if a body can't live in the home they want furnished with the appliances they want?

Ah, silly you. You didn't reckon on the Democratic Party's desire to control every miniscule aspect of your life.
Let me introduce you to a little section of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill called the "Building Energy Performance Labeling Program". It's section 304 of the bill and it says, basically, that your house belongs to the state. See, the Federal Government really wants a country full of energy-efficient homes, so much so that the bill mandates that new homes be 30 percent more energy efficient than the current building code on the very day the law is signed. That efficiency goes up to 50 percent by 2014 and only goes higher from there, all the way to 2030. That, by the way, is not merely a target but a requirement of the law. New homes must reach those efficiency targets no matter what.

But what does that have to do with current homeowners like you? Well, I'm glad you asked. You're certainly not off the hook, no way, no how. Here's what the Democrats have planned for you. The program requires that states label their buildings so that we can all know how efficient every building (that includes residential and non-residential buildings) is and it requires that the information be made public. To that end, the bill suggests a number of circumstances under which the states could inspect a building, including:


In NM, there is draft language that would effectively  put the owner-builder out of business if it were ever passed as law.  The goal is to ensure that every home, regardless of size , is an energy-star home.  That means that your small home would have to be built from plans that are approved, and finally that your small house would have to meet the stringent permit and inspection process to meet energy-star guidelines.

I'm a proponent of energy savings and also a strong supporter of the environment, but draw the line here.   Someday, the ability of the average person to build a small, affordable home will be eliminated.  Ironically, the people it will hurt the most are probably more environmentaly friendly and have a smaller carbon footprint than the couple living in a McMansion commuting to the city every day.

[Squirl]

I don't know where the article is from, but I generally distrust any article that paraphrases and over simplifies a law without actually giving you what the language they are interpreting it from.  Also I generally discount any publication that blames either political party with straight fear mongering.  It sends up major red flags to me that someone is trying to take advantage of someone else's ignorance for political gain.  I generally give the information the same credence I do from used car sales people and infomercials.

The usual, "[insert political party of choice] is pure evil and you know it.  What they are trying to accomplish will bankrupt you, take your kids away, and kill you.  Trust me."

[MountainDon]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454

Good place to see status of all government bills, house and senate

[Squirl]

Thanks don.  This bill died in congress last year.

I don't understand what state law you are referring to.  Also, I don't understand how by  increasing energy code requirements it prevents owner builders from building.  If anything, I believe it gives many an advantage.  Before I went down the path of building, I went shopping for a home.  Every house that I found that complied with increased quality and better insulation commanded a drastic premium over other new homes.  An owner builder can increase stud size and insulation values at a fraction of the cost of the total home construction, giving more savings than other new houses.  A 500 sq. ft. house requiring 2x6 or 2x8 walls instead of 2x4, doesn't prevent people from building it.

An interesting note, is some of the information in the article you reprinted was from a chain email debunked by snopes.com.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/captrade.asp
Was this a published article or a chain email?  I would love to know the source.

[dug]

I think it's a given that politics only makes sense to politicians.

As to the matter of whether forcing people to burn wood due to the rising cost of traditional power sources would increase pollution, I think is highly debatable.

Newer electric plants are actually quite clean, depending on generation method.  In the pacific NW, for example, there is clean hydro and nuclear power.

I don't think there is any such thing as "clean" nuclear power. For starters uranium mining is a terribly dirty business, releasing radioactive waste that poses many known and probably many more unknown risks to anyone in the vicinity, and anyone else who happens to be downwind. Abandoned mines can emit dangerous levels of radiation for many thousands of years, making once usable land off limits more or less forever. Then there is uranium enrichment which requires vast amounts of electrical power (coal). Nuclear power plants also suck up an awful lot of water used for cooling. Finally the waste must then be buried deep in a mountain somewhere, which takes more power, creates more unknown health hazards, and violates good folks who choose to live in the middle of nowhere in attempts to escape the filth of cities.

When considering coal most people aim their focus on what comes out of the stack, which is bad enough, and forget about the environmental costs and power required to mine and transport the coal. Coal burning plants are often strategically located in minimally populated locales which then transport the power to cities hundreds of miles away, even if the source of the coal is right next to said city. Why? So as not to remind the residents that running their AC's is turning the air black.

The world (humans anyway) need power, I'm not denying that. There really is no source of power that comes without a price, and personally I think the best solution is for people to figure out a way to use less of it. I got no studies to back me up but I would bet that by collecting dead wood from on and around my property, and using very little fuel to do so I am having less of an impact on the environment than if I used electricity, oil or gas to heat with. Of course if everyone did the same the world would probably soon run out of dead wood, and then live trees might then join the endangered species list. No easy answers.

I'll leave the cap and trade politics to others fluent in that language, it's all jibber jabber to me.

[Native_NM]

I don't know where the article is from, but I generally distrust any article that paraphrases and over simplifies a law without actually giving you what the language they are interpreting it from.  Also I generally discount any publication that blames either political party with straight fear mongering.  It sends up major red flags to me that someone is trying to take advantage of someone else's ignorance for political gain.  I generally give the information the same credence I do from used car sales people and infomercials.

The usual, "[insert political party of choice] is pure evil and you know it.  What they are trying to accomplish will bankrupt you, take your kids away, and kill you.  Trust me."

Generally I agree with you.  I'm not much for fear mongering, from either side.  I read it on a blog that linked back to here:

http://www.10thamendmentfoundation.org/Cap_and_Trade.html

Section 304 is what had people scared.  While the House Bill is dead for now, there are plenty of other forces still at work.

[MountainDon]

It does pay, to pay attention to what the politicians are up to.

[Native_NM]

Thanks don.  This bill died in congress last year.

I don't understand what state law you are referring to.  Also, I don't understand how by  increasing energy code requirements it prevents owner builders from building.  If anything, I believe it gives many an advantage.  Before I went down the path of building, I went shopping for a home.  Every house that I found that complied with increased quality and better insulation commanded a drastic premium over other new homes.  An owner builder can increase stud size and insulation values at a fraction of the cost of the total home construction, giving more savings than other new houses.  A 500 sq. ft. house requiring 2x6 or 2x8 walls instead of 2x4, doesn't prevent people from building it.

An interesting note, is some of the information in the article you reprinted was from a chain email debunked by snopes.com.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/captrade.asp
Was this a published article or a chain email?  I would love to know the source.

I was not referring to specific legislation, I stated draft language.  Draft language is different completely than anything currently up for vote.

Think about this: The only thing that prevents you from building a small, energy efficient house today is owning a piece of land and the funds for some lumber.  You need a set of blueprints, which on this website are quite inexpensive.  Most states allow owners to self-contract their own home, and in many locations you don't even need to have the place permitted or inspected, for now....

While cap-and-trade on a national level is dead (for now), many states are now moving to enact their own versions of cap-and-trade.  Our outgoing governor in NM was a huge proponent of strict new laws.  You understand that much of the legislation that is introduced is the result of months of back-door jockeying.  Worse, much of the proposed language is not originated by local legislators, but by national, paid lobbyists who latch onto somebody they feel shares a common agenda.  They bring reams of boilerplate legislation to the table for discussion.  The language was written by some lawyer in a think-tank somewhere, and may not even be applicable in the state they are lobbying.  They don't care.  This works for both sides – Democrats and Republicans - at both the state and federal level.  Neither side is any better than the other in my opinion.  The language that finally makes to a Bill is independent of what was originally hashed about in conference, committee, or discussion.  When I refer to "language", it may not be language that has been introduced in official form, yet. 

My position and profession placed me in a position that allowed me to participate in some focus groups for potential legislation in NM.  One such proposal was a requirement that that EVERY new building in NM meet Energy Star compliance by some future date. On the surface, that sounds like a good thing - everybody wants us to be more energy efficient.  But the implications could be severe.  If the government decides that the average guy building his own home is not qualified to build an energy efficient home, he is never going to build his own home.  They will make the process so restrictive that the era of the self-builder is dead.  One idea proposed was that all plans submitted for permit (and EVERY new structure would require a permit) had to be stamped as Energy Star compliant.  They wanted to phase this in before the actual building requirement was in place.  The thinking was that if the plans were stamped as Energy Star certified, then the builder was more likely to build the home to Energy Star standards, even if the house was not specifically built as an Energy Star home.  In the case of John's plans, it might be a simple process to get them certified or stamped, assuming there was even a certifying agency.  The EPA, as far as I can tell, does not certify plans, it focuses on the final build.  Energy Star is a building process, not necessarily a design process.  In theory, any set of plans can be built to Energy Star standards.  If every set of plans suddenly needs a certifying stamp from a local energy engineer, or Energy Star partner (rater), the cost could be substantial.  All it really means as the chances that a small self-built place in rural NM burning wood is ever going to get an Energy Star stamp is zero. 

For a home to become Energy Star certified, the builder works closely with the EPA during the entire design and building process.  One can verify the requirements at www.energystar.gov.  By some metric, builders have to prove that they are capable of building to the Energy Star standard. In Version 3 of the Energy Star process, EVERY builder has to undergo training and licensing. Every HVAC contractor has to be trained and licensed.  The builders and their projects are independently verified by the EPA or its partners (raters).  Many building their own small home work on their own schedule, as resources permit.  Sometimes designs are changed to match the wallet. Try that when you are building to a strict energy code.

I am an environmentalist; I am in the industry, yet when I meet with some of these folks, it scares me.  Impact fees in the thousands, permit fees in the thousands, and site fees in the thousands are collectively all restrictive.  One last thing – your home is viewed as a revenue stream to every taxing agency in the country.  The more your home is worth, the more tax they can collect.  In NM, there was discussion about how to increase the property values of property in poorer regions of the state.  The guy that builds his home on a piece of family land for $30,000 pays far less than his neighbor who hires a builder and builds a similar home for $130,000.  There was actually a discussion about hiring dozens of new "revenue agents" to visit EVERY home in NM and assessing if it was valued properly. Usually property taxes are the domain of local assessors. Suddenly the state cares about property taxes...scary.   When I heard that, all I could think of was another chain email about the last census, and the fact that they wanted GPS coordinates of every structure in the country.  Nothing either political party does is without some underlying reason.  Usually that reason involves a way for the government to dig deeper into your pocketbook.

I spent enough time dealing with this issue to write a book.  It spooks me.  Mountain Don has inspired many of us here, especially those of us in NM.  I have drawn up my plans a dozen different ways.  I have a dream of building a small place for weekend use now, and perhaps even retiring there someday.  In one discussion I was involved in, it was suggested that second homes or vacation homes should be taxed with a huge "environmental luxury" tax, because they are not environmentally friendly.  The owner uses excess resources to build the place, and then excess resources to commute or visit there.  Think about that and the implications, especially if applied retroactively.  Think what it would do to property values – the same property values cities are scrambling to increase.  Think how you would feel if your property taxes were based on how far you lived from the center of town (goal: increase population density), or based on how far you lived from mass transit(goal: increase mass transit), or if suddenly the property taxes on your hunting cabin were taxed an extra few thousand a year because someone thinks you are an environmental hog.  Think about paying fuel taxes based on miles driven, or how many people were in your family, or the mileage your vehicle gets.  All of these types of taxes or scenarios have been floated or introduced as real legislation.  That should scare anybody, even if they never made it to law, regardless of political affiliation.  Look at the Energy Star guidelines, and look at the tables on square footage, bedroom size, and BTU requirements.  If I make a million a year, it should be my business and right to build whatever I want.  If I make $25,000, it should be my right to build a small affordable house without excess government intrusion.  That is my concern and agenda.
I'm an Independent on most issues, left-leaning on the environment, but fiercely conservative when it comes to personal liberty. Oh, I hate lobbyists.

[Native_NM]

I think it's a given that politics only makes sense to politicians.

As to the matter of whether forcing people to burn wood due to the rising cost of traditional power sources would increase pollution, I think is highly debatable.

Newer electric plants are actually quite clean, depending on generation method.  In the pacific NW, for example, there is clean hydro and nuclear power.

I don't think there is any such thing as "clean" nuclear power. For starters uranium mining is a terribly dirty business, releasing radioactive waste that poses many known and probably many more unknown risks to anyone in the vicinity, and anyone else who happens to be downwind. Abandoned mines can emit dangerous levels of radiation for many thousands of years, making once usable land off limits more or less forever. Then there is uranium enrichment which requires vast amounts of electrical power (coal). Nuclear power plants also suck up an awful lot of water used for cooling. Finally the waste must then be buried deep in a mountain somewhere, which takes more power, creates more unknown health hazards, and violates good folks who choose to live in the middle of nowhere in attempts to escape the filth of cities.

When considering coal most people aim their focus on what comes out of the stack, which is bad enough, and forget about the environmental costs and power required to mine and transport the coal. Coal burning plants are often strategically located in minimally populated locales which then transport the power to cities hundreds of miles away, even if the source of the coal is right next to said city. Why? So as not to remind the residents that running their AC's is turning the air black.

The world (humans anyway) need power, I'm not denying that. There really is no source of power that comes without a price, and personally I think the best solution is for people to figure out a way to use less of it. I got no studies to back me up but I would bet that by collecting dead wood from on and around my property, and using very little fuel to do so I am having less of an impact on the environment than if I used electricity, oil or gas to heat with. Of course if everyone did the same the world would probably soon run out of dead wood, and then live trees might then join the endangered species list. No easy answers.

I'll leave the cap and trade politics to others fluent in that language, it's all jibber jabber to me.

By this metric, one of the cleanest overall energy source is gulf oil, which is essentially extracted by poking a straw in the sand, and shipping it by boat to a central refinery for processing and distribution.  As you noted, there are no easy solutions. 

[Squirl]

I thought NM already had to adhere to the ICC building code.  This includes insulation requirements, inspections, graded lumber, septic etc..... I didn't think all you needed was lumber and land in NM.  I have a book on straw bale houses and NM was one of the first to codify them as an approved building method at the state level.  This leads me to believe there are still building codes that must be followed in NM.  Is there not currently a building code and inspections in NM?

Also I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that the supremacy clause prevents states from enacting individual emissions standards and that was the domain of the EPA in California v. EPA. Cap and trade seems like it would not be enforceable at the state level.

Thank you for expanding on the Energy Star Compliance issues.  I was not as familiar with the training and certification that is required of a builder to be allowed to build an Energy Star Home.  I can see how this can add a lot of cost to the building process.  No one wants to end up with a state like California in the inspection process.  I am for the current system of energy compliance and I wouldn't be offended if they upped that a little.  A quarter of the energy in this country is used to heat and cool our houses.  I like to look at these issues with the view of the environment and also the view of national security.

I completely agree that government needs a watchful eye.  I just have problems when people can't read a law or deliberately misstate it as in the article posted.

[Native_NM]

Most states have their own code, which generally incorporates the national buildings code(s).  NM is no different.  There are dozens of examples of people who built their own home with little more than a piece of land and a Home Depot credit card.  John's plans are perfect for the self-builder.  Energy Star calls for homes that are 30 to 40% more efficient than the current standard.  If code was good enough, there wouldn't be a push by certain groups to mandate that EVERY home be Energy Star certified. 

Nothing I posted was a misstatement, nor was that the intent.  Cap/trade is one of those bills that is so large and complex nobody really knows what it says. Guess they will just have to pass it so we can see what's in it.

States can pass their own laws. In NM, for example, some people want tougher arsenic standards than the Feds.  The incremental cost is expensive.

[MountainDon]

I'm glad to see governor Bill gone; he loved to spend my money. We'll have to wait and see how the next four years pan out under Martinez

We have as many codes as many states, more than some, not as bad as a few states.

Gov. Bill had a "thing" about wanting to be first, no matter the sense of it, no matter the cost, no matter the number of people against whatever it was. I will admit to approving of some of his achievements, but on the whole he spent too much.

[Native_NM]

I'm not opposed to spending when it benefits greater society or the public in total.  Regulation can also have a net benefit to the public.  There is a point of diminishing returns for regulation.  The incremental cost of implementing cap-and-trade for example, is estimated in the trillions, with a "T".  The additional net benefit is measured in the billions (at least finacially). 

The original post here addressed the unintended consequences of cap-and-trade, and was based on a report from some economists who recognize that everything is not black and white.  Politicians usually think short-term, but spend long-term.  A classic example is cigarette taxes.  Taxes were raised for two reasons:  one to curb usage and improve health.  The second was to generate revenue.  In the base year of any new tax, somebody makes a revenue projection.  The revenue stream is variable, based on the units taxed (in this case cigarettes).  In the same year, some politician decides to commit that revenue stream for the next 20+ years.  Assume that by year five, half the people quite smoking.  The revenue stream is now half of the base year, but the expense stream is fixed.  Next step - raise the tax even more.  By year ten, another half have quit smoking.  The revenue stream is now 25% of the original baseline.  To keep the revenue stream the same, the original tax rate would have to increase by a factor of four, or a 300% tax increase. 

I read much of the cap-and-trade bill.  There are lots of spending plans for that money.  Lets assume it passed and suddenly net energy usage fell by 25%.  I wonder how long it would take the Feds to raise the tax rate to fill the gap!   The legislation is about revenue first, and the environment second.  They could add a dollar a gallon surtax to gas today with one page of legislation, and it would help the environment more than the multi-thousand page cap-and-trade bill.

[Native_NM]

I'm glad to see governor Bill gone; he loved to spend my money. We'll have to wait and see how the next four years pan out under Martinez

We have as many codes as many states, more than some, not as bad as a few states.

Gov. Bill had a "thing" about wanting to be first, no matter the sense of it, no matter the cost, no matter the number of people against whatever it was. I will admit to approving of some of his achievements, but on the whole he spent too much.

Choo choo, went the billion dollar train.  Now it goes "chew chew", right into the budget.

[MountainDon]

Choo choo, went the billion dollar train.

Grrr, grrr, went Don.


How about GRIP.... Governor Richardson's Investment Partnership  =  Gov Richards Impressive Plane

[Sassy]

Surprisingly unbiased article by Forbes...

Cap-and-Trade Fantasies In Disneyland
Feb. 15 2011 - 3:38 pm
By LARRY BELL
SUN VALLEY, CA - DECEMBER 11: The Department ...

California, marching to the beat of its own drum, is on the road to another economic minefield of its own making. On September 2, 2010, voters rejected an alternate Proposition 23 route, one that would have avoided the approved Assembly Bill 32 superhighway to disaster. Resulting cap-and-trade booby traps will be triggered in 2012 when the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is implemented. This legislation authorizes unelected officials at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a program enabling companies that cut greenhouse gas emissions to sell "allowances" to others that need them to meet reduction regulations targeted at 15% by 2020.

Well, there is still an outside chance that this won't happen. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith has recently ruled that CARB will be barred from implementing the proposed ARB 32 plan because it didn't complete an environmental review required under the California Environmental Quality Act to determine if there are better ways to accomplish the same objectives. Want to hear the really funny part? Okay, get ready for this. According to Investor's Business Daily, one of the plaintiffs in the case that originally backed ARB 32 passage, the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, joined the suit because it determined the proposed implementation of the plan was "too friendly to business."

If ARB 32 goes forward CARB will give away allowances to the state's 500 largest greenhouse gas emitters, letting those that reduce them sell excess allowances to others that don't. CARB would later charge for those allowances to raise state revenues. They also seem inclined to allow up to 8% of the greenhouse gas reductions to be met through purchases of "offset credits" obtained from developing nations who purport to have realized emission reductions. Of course such transactions will lack transparency, and will most certainly be rife with fraud. In addition, they will not only increase energy costs, but also accelerate flows of capital and exports of jobs out of the state.

It's not as if the state doesn't have enough problems already. California has lost 34% of its industrial base since 2001, has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (12.4%), and has run up unfunded pension liabilities for its state and local public employees that may be as much as $500 billion (roughly 17% of the nation's $3 trillion total). A recent study conducted by the Pacific Research Institute predicts that AB 32 will produce an additional 150,000 state job losses by 2012, growing to 1.3 million by 2020. A 2009 study commissioned by the California Small Business Roundtable estimates that the new legislation will "result in a higher cost to California households of $3,857 per year".

Cap-and-trade is typically promoted as an "environmental justice" initiative. This misleading claim is based upon three errant and deceptive premises: (1) that the legislation will help protect our planet from dangerous climate change and pollution; (2) that it is needed to wean California and the rest of the country and world away from excessive energy consumption; and (3) that it will incentivize energy technology and conservation innovations that will lead to independence from fossils and foreign oil.

The initial premise is wrong on two accounts. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any human-caused climate crisis exists. Second, there is no real likelihood that any attempts to reduce atmospheric CO2 emissions can be expected to have any measurable climate influence. Further, simply because the EPA, parroted by green marketers condemns CO2 as a "pollutant," that claim does not make it so. Such a declaration only misleads people, and confuses this natural and essential molecule with real pollutants that truly should be restricted.

The second premise, that carbon restrictions are necessary for energy consumption control, belies inherent logic of free market economic incentives to advance conservation economies. Further, it empowers government to pick and subsidize winners, restrict choices, and intentionally drive up costs. The burdens of this zero-sum-gain strategy will fall most painfully upon low-income consumers and small-profit-margin businesses who can least afford them.

The third premise, that carbon penalties attached to fossil-fueled utilities will incentivize alternative technology innovations, is misleading in several respects. Heavily funded green marketing promotions fail to inform the public about the limited-capacity potentials afforded by "renewable" energy sources, most particularly in regard to urgent time frames required to substantially offset demands. Unfounded technology promises provide excuses for other agendas: expansion of government control and spending, and unwarranted mandates and subsidies for those who play the system. When bureaucrats are empowered to reward politics and promises over performance, taxpayers and captive consumers are left to cover the costs.

Those costs under AB 32 will be substantial . California refiners will be forced to begin to comply with a low carbon fuel standard this year, reducing the "carbon intensity" of transportation fuels 10% by 2020.  This will most likely entail increasing the corn ethanol mix in petroleum, running up food costs, depleting water supplies, and causing environmental land damage while affording no net CO2 emission reduction.  It will also impose costly refinery modifications and require and necessitate increased importing of higher quality, non-California crude oil feedstock.

Since most Californians don't live in dense urban centers, the bulk of those extra expenses will be passed on to truckers, commuters and rural drivers. According to a December 20, 2010 Investor's Business Daily article authored by Chuck Devore, some analysts are forecasting a resulting gasoline price shock of 30% to 80% within five years.

And what about those alternative non-fossil transportation possibilities?  Environmental lobby resistance to oil and gas drilling doesn't bode well for the future of hydrogen-fueled cars, because the primary feedstock of hydrogen is natural gas. Actually, hydrogen really doesn't make any sense anyway. It requires lots more energy to obtain than it produces.

Then there are those nifty little electric cars. Unfortunately, they're not great for commuting and carpooling on California freeways, don't have much range, aren't cheap, and need to be recharged at night. But isn't that when the sun doesn't shine, and the wind can't be counted on to blow?  con't below

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/02/15/cap-and-trade-fantasies-in-disneyland/

[Squirl]

 They could add a dollar a gallon surtax to gas today with one page of legislation, and it would help the environment more than the multi-thousand page cap-and-trade bill.

Brilliant.  Well written.

[Native_NM]

 They could add a dollar a gallon surtax to gas today with one page of legislation, and it would help the environment more than the multi-thousand page cap-and-trade bill.

Brilliant.  Well written.

Can't determine if your response is sarcastic, but I am serious.  I'd support a tax like that. It would cost the average family $1500, which is less than the CBO estimates cap/trade would cost.  No new administration costs needed.  Everyone pays at the pump.  Taxes the underground economy a bit, and based on the gas price increases of 2008 would dramatically reduce demand, which is what the environmentalists claim is the reason for cap/trade.

[Squirl]

Not sarcastic.  The easiest way to stop carbon is to tax it directly at the source.  Simpler than the other taxation system.  The cap and trade one is just another way for wall street to game it.  Also, it would help to quickly decline the trade deficit.  The only thing we import more of than Chinese goods is oil.  What you propose is the simplest and fastest way to reduce energy consumption, but I don't think Saudi Arabia would allow us to do it. 

[archimedes]

Sassy,
Speaking of sarcastic, were you serious when you said that Forbes articles was "unbiased"?

Because that is one of the most one sided,  misleading,  articles I've read in a long long time.  But I think you were kidding right?

[MountainDon]

Why should Saudi Arabia get into it? They may not like the immediate reduced sales and revenue but they should be able to see the revenue will be stretched out over a longer period. But the problem there is India and Chinas increased use.

Europe has always taxed their motor fuels at a much higher rate than the USA.

[Squirl]

The forbes article was laced with dramatic language and lots of facts with no citations.  I was surprised that they would publish something like that. Then I clicked the link and realized it was a political blogger on their site.  I treated it the same at the left wing stuff at huffpost.

[archimedes]

Squirl,

I think you have hit on the solution to the problem with the gas tax.

But there is a much better and more fair and efficient way of doing it - it's a Revenue neutral carbon tax and rebate program.

It's explained at this website.  (See the youtube video at the 6th bullet point)
http://www.carbontax.org/

They explain how the "Cap and Trade" bill can't possibly work and propose and incredibly simple and efficient solution,  without hurting anyone's pocketbook.  Except maybe the Middle East oil dictators.

I wish this video would go viral.  If enough Americans got behind this idea we could solve many of our problems from the trade deficit,  to national security,  to the environment,  without having to hurt (and it may even help)  the economy.  Unfortunately,  the only people who will benefit are the American people,  so it probably will never happen.

[Native_NM]

Squirl,

But there is a much better and more fair and efficient way of doing it - it's a Revenue neutral carbon tax and rebate program.

I wish this video would go viral.  If enough Americans got behind this idea we could solve many of our problems from the trade deficit,  to national security,  to the environment,  without having to hurt (and it may even help)  the economy.  Unfortunately,  the only people who will benefit are the American people,  so it probably will never happen.

I'm not sure it is mathematically possible to lower the national debt or the defecit with revenue-neutral legislation.  The only way to do either is spend less than received, or increase taxes at a rate that exceeds spending.  I think Archimedes the mathematician would agree.   Maybe I misunderstood the website, but they make it sound like this would lower the debt or defecit.   Dubious.