It’s hard to critique this bill because it is so long. That is one of the beauties of Virginia’s constitution: the one topic clause. But from a 50,000 foot level, I don’t like the idea of Cap & Trade for carbon dioxide. What has worked well for sulphur dioxide doesn’t necessarily translate into something that will work well for CO2.

What I dislike about Cap and Trade is that it is administratively complex. You have to setup a new regulatory structure to administer it. A direct tax would have been a far more efficient way to have gone about this. We already have an existing framework to administer and collect such a tax. The reason I think this is bad in comparison to SO2 trading is that the market is so huge. There will be invariably a huge market of middlemen created by the financial sector. All that money that floats around in investment markets will add to the price of credits, as speculation can do. I think there will be pricing volatility which will make it very difficult for businesses to make decisions.

To your point about climate science, it’s a complex field in which I have no expertise. As with many things, I am therefore happy to rely on experts. The consensus of which is that humans are contributing to global warming (at least, as I understand it). That isn’t to say there is no variability there and no uncertainties. My opinion on mitigation though (assuming that the IPCC’s prediction or worse is right) is that the change required to industrialized economies, especially ours, is untenable.

I still think it is a good idea to diversify away from oil and coal. Taking CO2 out of the equation, coal extraction & combustion is still dirty. Oil reserves are concentrated in parts of the world with a high degree of political risk including repressive, undemocratic regimes. And as the economies of China and India continue to grow, there simply won’t be enough production to satisfy all that demand. So, best to wean ourselves off it before more price pressures hit.

Are You seriously nitpicking over 8 friggin votes? The GOP Voted overwhelmingly against.

Perhaps I read it other than was intended, but I think there was reason enough given to take the assumption that you favor this legislation. Often when someone asks for clarification of a position, the questioner holds a differing view of the topic.

If this was not the case, why would Hoeft bother to direct his response the way that he did. Incorrect as to your congressman or not, I’m not the only person that felt your line of logic and questions suggested a held position.

It was announced by Reid Greenmun(Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party) at the Tea Party in Chesapeake that Cap & Tax passed as soon as results came in. Oh sure, there are Republicans at these Tea Parties, but not exclusively so by a long shot. Many people blame the Republicans for being big government socialists as well. This goes beyond mere partisanship. Many people were very unhappy that this threat to our economic health passed.

If I overreacted to your request for clarification, it is likely due to my passionate opinion that this legislation is dangerous and will bring us closer to socialism, a loss of freedom, and economic ruin.

Conservation and innovative ways of clean energy production do not necessitate assaults on the American way of life.

If your position has been mistaken for something else, I would encourage you to give us your actual take on Cap and Trade.

You do more though than just comment on the legislative process. You advocate for specific bills. I’m just trying to cull out your specific arguments in favor of those bills. I’m not ascribing anything, just seeking clarity.

Brett, I don’t know if you’re ascribing arguments to me that I did not make or if you are just reporting your opinion. I was just trying to clarify Mr. Hoeft’s position.

*************************************
”
Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.

But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain.”
*************************************

No Tex, I for one don’t see global warming as “Well established” except as trusted gossip in Left Wing circles.

I know….I know, just because the Earth is cooling and that volcanos cause more than humans means nothing. There is always a Global Warming Scam excuse. They say, yea its cooler here but hotter there and look at all the tornados and hurricanes. Now that we’ve been in a lull of hurricanes, I guess there’s another excuse for that.

What is truly scary is that IF and that is a big IF, there is global warming and man is to blame, at least that “Messing with mother nature” was unintended. The global warming scammers like Al Gore, are asking us to to interfere PURPOSELY with nature even WITHOUT incontrivertable FACTS! What if you’re wrong? What if we somehow actually can affect the global climate? What if Al Gore’s pocket filling ideas push the climate out of balance and cause catastrophe? What will you do then? Excuse it by saying, “Ooops, I guess we were wrong”. I doubt it. More than likely, some BS story about if we had acted sooner all the evidence that SEEMS contrary to global warming never would have occured. Its always the same transparent attempt at continuing this ponzi scheme by attempting to BS through it.

The US is getting cleaner just throught the use of technology. China and India are not developed enough to be as clean as we can. Therefore, as you and all the Democrats know, they CAN’T abide by Kyoto and hope to further evolve. They’re not going to put their nations on a suicide course. Doesn’t look like they’ll try to stop us.

Gotta give Nye credit. Perriello just gave ammunition to his future opponent. This is going to be a horrible drain on our economy. We must stop this in the Senate.

Remember moral hazard and unintended consequences? They’re Baack! Some of the analysis I’ve read says the banks don’t want to foreclose because:

A. They have too many houses already.

B. If they write the house off, it’s an instant hit on their balance sheets.

C. They don’t want the legal hassles with the states/counties/etc.

D. The losses don’t matter because TARP covers it.

E. They can’t figure out who the real owners of the mortgage are.

F. All the above.

We’ve gone from walkaway to stayforfree. Who knew that sub-prime Ninja loans would evolve into a new Ninja Lifestyle that even upper middle class are joining as their Opt-ARMS and Prime Jumbos go bust?

The average hard working American is at a crossroads. Either keep faith in a fantasy, or join the rest of the deadbeats. The daily newspaper is telling you which path more citizens are choosing.

Second, no one read this bill. 300 pages were snuck in at 3 am. And there is an unconstitutional “place holder” mentioned so that they can add more after the vote.

Third, the entire premise of “cap and trade” is a proven failure. Look at Europe and Kyoto. China and India have already spoken. They are NOT going to kill THEIR economies.

Fourth, Spain is bewildered that we are following a similar plan for green jobs as theirs. Their plan failed miserably.

This bill will do nothing but hurt our economy. NOTHING will be gained, except that Al Gore’s wallet will get fatter. He owns a “carbon credit” company. Where are all the critics of Enron? This was an idea pushed by those thieves.

Glenn Nye voted against the Forbes amendment and voted against the climate change bill.

Does this mean that he found neither solution palatable?

Tex, I don’t make law…I just comment on my perception of the process.

I think you should take up your questions directly with your congressman, who clearly doesn’t think climate change legislation is necessary.