Annual total lose in purchasing power
- Thread starter Tempest
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I'll go for that. Unfortunately, common sense only seems to take hold after you've got a scorched earth to repair before you.
I don't think that you can contain corruption. It's like water seeking an outlet. I've watched barricade after barricade to prevent stuff just circumvented either directly or via the next evolution in corruption capitalizing on the new vulnerability.
We're a very malevolent and predatory society at our core.
I don't think that you can contain corruption. It's like water seeking an outlet. I've watched barricade after barricade to prevent stuff just circumvented either directly or via the next evolution in corruption capitalizing on the new vulnerability.
We're a very malevolent and predatory society at our core.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
They appear to. Getting cooperation in truly making things "better" is the hard part. You've got a bunch of pre-pubescent jerks that obviously weren't raised with any social values and must have been on the short nipple at feeding time at the zoo they broke out of.
They don't know how to act in public.
They don't know how to act in public.
The right answer is to seek the truth, and know how to find the truth. Setting goals based on superstition leads to a conflict with reality, and wasted resources.
Originally Posted By: jsharp
All of those haters of "Big Oil" and NIMBY's should love some of these highlights -
Big Oil’s Answer to Carbon Law May Be Fuel Imports (Update2)
June 26 (Bloomberg) -- America’s biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.
“It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment,” Mulva said in a June 16 interview in Detroit. Houston-based ConocoPhillips has the second-largest U.S. refining capacity.
The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida.
About 2 million barrels of daily U.S. refining capacity will shut down because carbon costs will be several times the operating profits for some plants, Ihne said. That’s equivalent to 12 percent of the nation’s fuel-making capacity. Jones, the API economist, said there could be as much as 3 million barrels of idled processing capacity.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a1ZiIqv3E4QE
How about those green jobs and decreased imports? This is CHANGE you can believe in...
The fact that this MIGHT come about will kill domestic investment by oil companies as they don't want to send money down a drain.
Gov. is killing American jobs just by pushing this.
All of those haters of "Big Oil" and NIMBY's should love some of these highlights -
Big Oil’s Answer to Carbon Law May Be Fuel Imports (Update2)
June 26 (Bloomberg) -- America’s biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.
“It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment,” Mulva said in a June 16 interview in Detroit. Houston-based ConocoPhillips has the second-largest U.S. refining capacity.
The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida.
About 2 million barrels of daily U.S. refining capacity will shut down because carbon costs will be several times the operating profits for some plants, Ihne said. That’s equivalent to 12 percent of the nation’s fuel-making capacity. Jones, the API economist, said there could be as much as 3 million barrels of idled processing capacity.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a1ZiIqv3E4QE
How about those green jobs and decreased imports? This is CHANGE you can believe in...
The fact that this MIGHT come about will kill domestic investment by oil companies as they don't want to send money down a drain.
Gov. is killing American jobs just by pushing this.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Well, the fractional reserve and shipping in Asian goods by the ship load did a decent job of it too.
Hey, kid!! It's either me, or them three.
Any plans for an assault on the Fed? Wall St. ..the financiers and the money changers?? Cull them with prejudice and everything should be perfectly self regulating. No ticky. No washy.
Hey, kid!! It's either me, or them three.
Any plans for an assault on the Fed? Wall St. ..the financiers and the money changers?? Cull them with prejudice and everything should be perfectly self regulating. No ticky. No washy.
Quote:
Any plans for an assault on the Fed?
Gov. wants to give them more power.
Quote:
Wall St. ..the financiers and the money changers??
Cap and trade will create an entirely new Wall St. based on vapor product.
Any plans for an assault on the Fed?
Gov. wants to give them more power.
Quote:
Wall St. ..the financiers and the money changers??
Cap and trade will create an entirely new Wall St. based on vapor product.
Quote:
cap-and-trade system can cause serious risks to international trade. Even if every country has a cap-and-trade system and all aim at the same relative reduction in national CO2 emissions, the resulting permit prices will differ because of national differences in initial CO2 levels and in domestic production characteristics. Because the price of the CO2 permits in a country is reflected in the prices of its products, the cap-and-trade system affects its international competitiveness.
When the permit prices become large enough to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions, there will be political pressure to introduce tariffs on imports that offset the advantage of countries with low permit prices. Such offsetting tariffs would have to differ among products (being higher on more CO2-intensive products) and among countries (being higher for countries with low permit prices). Such a system of complex differential tariffs is just the kind of protectionism that governments have been working to eliminate since the start of the GATT process more than 50 years ago.
Worse still, cap-and-trade systems in practice do not rely solely on auctions to distribute the emissions permits. The plan working its way through the United States Congress (the Waxman-Markey bill) would initially give away 85 per cent of the permits, impose a complex set of regulatory policies, and allow companies to buy CO2 offsets (eg, by paying for the planting of trees) instead of reducing their emissions or buying permits. Such complexities make it impossible to compare the impact of CO2 policies among countries, which in turn would invite those who want to protect domestic jobs to argue for higher tariff levels.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/martin-feldstein-cap-and-trade-=-protectionism/362252/
cap-and-trade system can cause serious risks to international trade. Even if every country has a cap-and-trade system and all aim at the same relative reduction in national CO2 emissions, the resulting permit prices will differ because of national differences in initial CO2 levels and in domestic production characteristics. Because the price of the CO2 permits in a country is reflected in the prices of its products, the cap-and-trade system affects its international competitiveness.
When the permit prices become large enough to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions, there will be political pressure to introduce tariffs on imports that offset the advantage of countries with low permit prices. Such offsetting tariffs would have to differ among products (being higher on more CO2-intensive products) and among countries (being higher for countries with low permit prices). Such a system of complex differential tariffs is just the kind of protectionism that governments have been working to eliminate since the start of the GATT process more than 50 years ago.
Worse still, cap-and-trade systems in practice do not rely solely on auctions to distribute the emissions permits. The plan working its way through the United States Congress (the Waxman-Markey bill) would initially give away 85 per cent of the permits, impose a complex set of regulatory policies, and allow companies to buy CO2 offsets (eg, by paying for the planting of trees) instead of reducing their emissions or buying permits. Such complexities make it impossible to compare the impact of CO2 policies among countries, which in turn would invite those who want to protect domestic jobs to argue for higher tariff levels.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/martin-feldstein-cap-and-trade-=-protectionism/362252/
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Any plans for an assault on the Fed?
Gov. wants to give them more power.
Quote:
Wall St. ..the financiers and the money changers??
Cap and trade will create an entirely new Wall St. based on vapor product.
I'll take that as a "No, they still have more damage to do that serves my rhetorical purposes ..but all in due time".
Quote:
Any plans for an assault on the Fed?
Gov. wants to give them more power.
Quote:
Wall St. ..the financiers and the money changers??
Cap and trade will create an entirely new Wall St. based on vapor product.
I'll take that as a "No, they still have more damage to do that serves my rhetorical purposes ..but all in due time".
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Any plans for an assault on the Fed?
Gov. wants to give them more power.
Quote:
Wall St. ..the financiers and the money changers??
Cap and trade will create an entirely new Wall St. based on vapor product.
Google HR1207. That's a bill with 245 co-sponsors demanding an audit of the Fed.
It's "stuck in committee." Hard to imagine...
Quote:
Any plans for an assault on the Fed?
Gov. wants to give them more power.
Quote:
Wall St. ..the financiers and the money changers??
Cap and trade will create an entirely new Wall St. based on vapor product.
Google HR1207. That's a bill with 245 co-sponsors demanding an audit of the Fed.
It's "stuck in committee." Hard to imagine...
Quote:
Among the energy-related provisions in the bill that affect buildings: state energy efficiency (SEED) funds, which would offer low- or zero-interest loans to fund energy efficiency upgrades for buildings. A second, similar program dubbed Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) would include broader incentives such as audits, technical assistance and training, along with credit support.
The bill would also require creation of an energy labeling program for buildings. It would raise standards for outdoor lighting systems and appliances. In addition, the bill would require research into whether Energy Star products should be made compatible with smart grid technology.
Another provision would dramatically boost energy efficiency in building codes — and create a much stronger role for the Department of Energy (DOE) in establishing model codes. The changes would in effect require the new version of ASHRAE’s 90.1 to be 30 percent more efficient than the 2004 version. By 2016 the code would need to be 50 percent more efficient than the 2004 version.
“Those are very aggressive targets,” says Karen Penafiel, vice president of advocacy for Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International.
The practical effect of the change means that if the ASHRAE committee updates 90.1 and the changes don’t add up to an improvement of at least 30 percent, DOE would have the authority to make a revised code that is more efficient.
The bill would allow DOE to set the code if ASHRAE doesn’t update it every three years. The bill also includes provisions aimed at speeding adoption of new energy codes
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/green/artic...ong-Odds--10874
Among the energy-related provisions in the bill that affect buildings: state energy efficiency (SEED) funds, which would offer low- or zero-interest loans to fund energy efficiency upgrades for buildings. A second, similar program dubbed Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) would include broader incentives such as audits, technical assistance and training, along with credit support.
The bill would also require creation of an energy labeling program for buildings. It would raise standards for outdoor lighting systems and appliances. In addition, the bill would require research into whether Energy Star products should be made compatible with smart grid technology.
Another provision would dramatically boost energy efficiency in building codes — and create a much stronger role for the Department of Energy (DOE) in establishing model codes. The changes would in effect require the new version of ASHRAE’s 90.1 to be 30 percent more efficient than the 2004 version. By 2016 the code would need to be 50 percent more efficient than the 2004 version.
“Those are very aggressive targets,” says Karen Penafiel, vice president of advocacy for Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International.
The practical effect of the change means that if the ASHRAE committee updates 90.1 and the changes don’t add up to an improvement of at least 30 percent, DOE would have the authority to make a revised code that is more efficient.
The bill would allow DOE to set the code if ASHRAE doesn’t update it every three years. The bill also includes provisions aimed at speeding adoption of new energy codes
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/green/artic...ong-Odds--10874
Quote:
India will not sign up to targets to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions but will instead focus on fighting poverty and boosting economic growth, the environment minister said Tuesday.
India is one of the world's biggest emitters alongside China, the U.S. and Russia, and the second most populous nation. But India's per capita emissions lag far behind rich countries and it feels the developed world should take the lead on tackling climate change.
"India cannot and will not take emission reduction targets because poverty eradication and social and economic development are first and over-riding priorities," a statement on behalf of Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE55T65N20090630
$3.5 billion to buy a vote.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul...ome_top5_shared
India will not sign up to targets to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions but will instead focus on fighting poverty and boosting economic growth, the environment minister said Tuesday.
India is one of the world's biggest emitters alongside China, the U.S. and Russia, and the second most populous nation. But India's per capita emissions lag far behind rich countries and it feels the developed world should take the lead on tackling climate change.
"India cannot and will not take emission reduction targets because poverty eradication and social and economic development are first and over-riding priorities," a statement on behalf of Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE55T65N20090630
$3.5 billion to buy a vote.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul...ome_top5_shared
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
What's your point? They're saying that they're going to pollute as much as necessary to promote economic development. The same stuff we've spouted when we never signed various treaties to reduce global use of some things.
Are you saying that they're as foolish as we are ..and need to achieve the same level of consumption based economy at the risk of everything else?
I guess we could make it a race to see who can manage to lay enough things to waste and be declared the winner.
Are you saying that they're as foolish as we are ..and need to achieve the same level of consumption based economy at the risk of everything else?
I guess we could make it a race to see who can manage to lay enough things to waste and be declared the winner.
Quote:
What's your point?
If this becomes law, more and more jobs will go overseas due to the lower costs.
What's your point?
If this becomes law, more and more jobs will go overseas due to the lower costs.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
What's your point?
If this becomes law, more and more jobs will go overseas due to the lower costs.
Oh. I see. This is way more important when comparing our increased costs of all things due to their incredible required consumption to accomplish all of those economic evolutions for 5X our population. Double that and more if China is factored in.
I think you're worried about a leak ..when floodgates are opening.
Quote:
What's your point?
If this becomes law, more and more jobs will go overseas due to the lower costs.
Oh. I see. This is way more important when comparing our increased costs of all things due to their incredible required consumption to accomplish all of those economic evolutions for 5X our population. Double that and more if China is factored in.
I think you're worried about a leak ..when floodgates are opening.
I firmly believe immigrants should pay double the taxes on their income - and corporations should be forced to pay triple-to-quadruple-taxes for offshore support operations.
- Status
