Cap and Trade

#126
#126
volinbham said:
this is absolute BS on several levels. It's an undue burden and it flies in the face of "this won't cost people anything" line about the bill.
Click to expand...

The truth is they have no real idea what the impact of this bill will be on the American people, we won't know for years. There will most certainly be unforeseen costs, there always is when the government is involved.
 
#127
#127
VolDad said:
I have been unable to determine if this is true or just conservative bloviating. I would like to know more about this.

Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses

"This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal “green” guidelines in order to sell their homes..."

Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses
Click to expand...

I watched part of the floor debate, and based on what Rep. Boehner read from the bill, this is 100% true. If you try to sell your house, you must have an "energy audit" performed on it to determine whether or not it meets the new federal guidelines, and if it doesn't, you must make the necessary "repairs" to meet the guidelines before you can sell your house (at your own expense, I presume).
 
#128
#128
I am not familiar with the details of the retrofit clause/policy - so I have no idea exactly how it would be carried out or enforced. What I do know is that I see two sides to this issue. Energy efficiency must be a key part of any strategy to reduce energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. If the government is truly interested in reducing emissions, then they can't get to the numbers they want to get to without serious energy efficiency gains...so I can understand why they want to push this issue. As a consumer, it works out well for you...in addition to decreasing your use of precious resources, it saves you money. Obviously, the problem here is implementation...no one is going to rail against the concept of energy efficiency.

I can see on one hand why the federal government wants to go with this retrofit policy. The lifetime of businesses and residences is much too long to allow new home/business construction to build in the energy efficiency that we need in our energy system (to be able to reach aggressive reductions in fossil fuel consumption).

However, my question is why this can't be a successful program that is enacted through targeted tax breaks rather than forced changes before a home can be sold? Do they not think the tax breaks would be effective - or are they that adamant against giving up their "hard earned" cash? Why not use a good portion of the early money made in cap and trade credits to go toward paying consumers to make these energy efficient retrofits in the form of tax breaks? Although...that question makes me wonder how much money they will even be getting early on...wasn't the bill reworked in order to get support such that most of the credits are being given away and not sold?
 
#129
#129
TennTradition said:
I am not familiar with the details of the retrofit clause/policy - so I have no idea exactly how it would be carried out or enforced. What I do know is that I see two sides to this issue. Energy efficiency must be a key part of any strategy to reduce energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. If the government is truly interested in reducing emissions, then they can't get to the numbers they want to get to without serious energy efficiency gains...so I can understand why they want to push this issue. As a consumer, it works out well for you...in addition to decreasing your use of precious resources, it saves you money. Obviously, the problem here is implementation...no one is going to rail against the concept of energy efficiency.

I can see on one hand why the federal government wants to go with this retrofit policy. The lifetime of businesses and residences is much too long to allow new home/business construction to build in the energy efficiency that we need in our energy system (to be able to reach aggressive reductions in fossil fuel consumption).

However, my question is why this can't be a successful program that is enacted through targeted tax breaks rather than forced changes before a home can be sold? Do they not think the tax breaks would be effective - or are they that adamant against giving up their "hard earned" cash? Why not use a good portion of the early money made in cap and trade credits to go toward paying consumers to make these energy efficient retrofits in the form of tax breaks? Although...that question makes me wonder how much money they will even be getting early on...wasn't the bill reworked in order to get support such that most of the credits are being given away and not sold?
Click to expand...

You are one of the most reasonable people who post at this board but you don't have a problem with the government forcing their way into your home?
 
#130
#130
I wanted to make a further note on how important energy efficiency gains are and how much room there is in this area...

According to Steven Chu in a presentation he made on campus earlier this year, when the US imposed refrigeration efficiency standards in 1974, there were a lot of complaints that refrigerators were going to have to be tiny and cost a ton to manufacture..that the policies would price people out of refrigerators. However, that obviously didn't happen. Although the industry didn't really see how it was going to happen at the time (or how much room there was for efficiency gains), the size of the refrigerator didn't get limited...in fact, it grew faster than it did before the changes. And, the price of the refrigerator dropped as well...not just price per cubic foot, but total cost....a trend that continued.

But, here's the kicker. The amount of energy we save each year in refrigeration energy efficiency gains (over the efficiency of those units in 1974) is greater than our current renewable energy portfolio.

I find that crazy...that's just refrigeration.

Buildings are responsible for about 40% of our energy consumption (this seems high to me...but I'm pretty sure that's what he said). It is believed that with proper design AND environmental control, we could reduce energy consumption of buildings by 80-90%....that's not pocket change in the least.

That's why I can see the reason the government wants to make sure it happens. But, why not try tax credits first - and if that fails, implement a more strict program?
 
#131
#131
TennTradition said:
I am not familiar with the details of the retrofit clause/policy - so I have no idea exactly how it would be carried out or enforced. What I do know is that I see two sides to this issue. Energy efficiency must be a key part of any strategy to reduce energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. If the government is truly interested in reducing emissions, then they can't get to the numbers they want to get to without serious energy efficiency gains...so I can understand why they want to push this issue. As a consumer, it works out well for you...in addition to decreasing your use of precious resources, it saves you money. Obviously, the problem here is implementation...no one is going to rail against the concept of energy efficiency.

I can see on one hand why the federal government wants to go with this retrofit policy. The lifetime of businesses and residences is much too long to allow new home/business construction to build in the energy efficiency that we need in our energy system (to be able to reach aggressive reductions in fossil fuel consumption).

However, my question is why this can't be a successful program that is enacted through targeted tax breaks rather than forced changes before a home can be sold? Do they not think the tax breaks would be effective - or are they that adamant against giving up their "hard earned" cash? Why not use a good portion of the early money made in cap and trade credits to go toward paying consumers to make these energy efficient retrofits in the form of tax breaks? Although...that question makes me wonder how much money they will even be getting early on...wasn't the bill reworked in order to get support such that most of the credits are being given away and not sold?
Click to expand...

This is a great question and I honestly believe the answer is that those who are invested in this venture (Al Gore etc) want their return, this is about money, and the power that goes with it. I believe this is what this has been about the entire time, why else would they put so much time and effort into lobbying for cap and trade and sinking money into the infrastructure needed to buy and sell credits?

Am I way off here or is there validity to my observations TT?
 
#132
#132
OrangeEmpire said:
You are one of the most reasonable people who post at this board but you don't have a problem with the government forcing their way into your home?
Click to expand...

Actually, OE, I made a comment about that - but it didn't make it into this version of the post as I re-typed it after accidentally closing my browser window.

I had a few sentences that elaborated more on "the other side" of the issue...but I didn't get to that as much when I retyped it. What I had typed before was..."But something about the federal government coming into my home to perform an energy audit before I can sell it just feels ..... wrong."

Obviously the government already comes in to do tax assessments, safety assessments in some locations, etc.....and in a lot of ways this inspection isn't all that much different....but I still don't like the sound of it all that much.

Perhaps part of the problem is that in the context of this bill, in order to keep energy prices lower, these sorts of gains in energy efficiency need to happen. Unfortunately, without aggressive tax credits or these sorts of inspection programs, these changes aren't going to be made unless prices are sufficiently high to force the changes. While an inspection program is away around having to force higher prices (in theory), it also feels like an invasion of privacy.

I will say that having to have the inspection for I can sell my home is at least better than yearly inspections regardless of whether or not I plan to sell it...
 
#133
#133
TennTradition said:
I wanted to make a further note on how important energy efficiency gains are and how much room there is in this area...

According to Steven Chu in a presentation he made on campus earlier this year, when the US imposed refrigeration efficiency standards in 1974, there were a lot of complaints that refrigerators were going to have to be tiny and cost a ton to manufacture..that the policies would price people out of refrigerators. However, that obviously didn't happen. Although the industry didn't really see how it was going to happen at the time (or how much room there was for efficiency gains), the size of the refrigerator didn't get limited...in fact, it grew faster than it did before the changes. And, the price of the refrigerator dropped as well...not just price per cubic foot, but total cost....a trend that continued.

But, here's the kicker. The amount of energy we save each year in refrigeration energy efficiency gains (over the efficiency of those units in 1974) is greater than our current renewable energy portfolio.

I find that crazy...that's just refrigeration.

Buildings are responsible for about 40% of our energy consumption (this seems high to me...but I'm pretty sure that's what he said). It is believed that with proper design AND environmental control, we could reduce energy consumption of buildings by 80-90%....that's not pocket change in the least.

That's why I can see the reason the government wants to make sure it happens. But, why not try tax credits first - and if that fails, implement a more strict program?
Click to expand...

We are talking about a fridge and a private residence........

:shaking2:
 
#134
#134
TennTradition said:
Actually, OE, I made a comment about that - but it didn't make it into this version of the post as I re-typed it after accidentally closing my browser window.

I had a few sentences that elaborated more on "the other side" of the issue...but I didn't get to that as much when I retyped it. What I had typed before was..."But something about the federal government coming into my home to perform an energy audit before I can sell it just feels ..... wrong."

Obviously the government already comes in to do tax assessments, safety assessments in some locations, etc.....and in a lot of ways this inspection isn't all that much different....but I still don't like the sound of it all that much.

Perhaps part of the problem is that in the context of this bill, in order to keep energy prices lower, these sorts of gains in energy efficiency need to happen. Unfortunately, without aggressive tax credits or these sorts of inspection programs, these changes aren't going to be made unless prices are sufficiently high to force the changes. While an inspection program is away around having to force higher prices (in theory), it also feels like an invasion of privacy.

I will say that having to have the inspection for I can sell my home is at least better than yearly inspections regardless of whether or not I plan to sell it...
Click to expand...

I despise government!

I hope we can sell our house before this crap goes into effect.
 
#135
#135
KB5252 said:
This is a great question and I honestly believe the answer is that those who are invested in this venture (Al Gore etc) want their return, this is about money, and the power that goes with it. I believe this is what this has been about the entire time, why else would they put so much time and effort into lobbying for cap and trade and sinking money into the infrastructure needed to buy and sell credits?

Am I way off here or is there validity to my observations TT?
Click to expand...

I think that there is validity to the point that some people stand to make money off of this legislation. With that said, anyone can make investments to get in on that...and in that way, it isn't all that much different than a lot of other legislation.

I think that some people involved in the effort are very worried about climate change and feel that this will genuinely help. I think that there are others who believe in climate change and see it is a great opportunity to make money as we switch our energy infrastructure. I think that there could be others who don't care about climate change, don't really care if the theory is right or wrong, and just think that this is a way that they could make money. I think that it would not be accurate to paint a thin stroke when describing the people involved in this sort of movement....there are a lot of different people motivated for a lot of different reasons.

How invested are people like Gore in energy efficiency companies? I know that Gore has money in all sorts of companies related to climate change...but I wonder how many in energy efficiency. I could be wrong - but in some ways I think that energy efficiency is a lot of low-hanging fruit, with changes that are easy to make, but don't provide a whole lot of profit to those who help you make the efficiency gains....though that's just speculation, though. I could be completely wrong on that...anyone have any data or opinions to offer?
 
#137
#137
TennTradition said:
I think that it would take them a while to get the program up and going. I also don't see why it has to be done this way...
Click to expand...

Hopefully not before March of next year.

Then the bastards will tell us what type of home we can build and what are temperature allowance will be throughout the year.

This is insanity!

Which hurts people like you who actually care and want to do something about it!
 
#138
#138
OrangeEmpire said:
Hopefully not before March of next year.

Then the bastards will tell us what type of home we can build and what are temperature allowance will be throughout the year.

This is insanity!

Which hurts people like you who actually care and want to do something about it!
Click to expand...

I personally see a distinction between requiring/encouraging set energy efficiency standards in new home construction (or possibly homes for sale) and regulating how much energy can be consumed (e.g., temperature controls, etc.). The first is a smart way to address our nation's energy consumption and could potentially be enacted in a way that is not all that invasive ... the second is way over the line, IMO.
 
#142
#142
Think of the folks with historic homes - ordinances ban certain modifications to maintain National Historic status but clearly some serious retrofitting (and highly expensive) would jeopardize that status.

I had a 1930's home - I'd hate to think about changing out the original (and beautiful) leaded class/wood frame windows before I could sell it.
 
#143
#143
I think our country may be headed for internal violence for a number of reasons... when things start hitting close to home, people will hit back.

When you start rationing electricity and healthcare, people will react strongly. Add to that the unfunded liabilities of medicare and social security, America's kids may be in for a very turbulent future...
 
#144
#144
Daddy Gee said:
I think our country may be headed for internal violence for a number of reasons... when things start hitting close to home, people will hit back.

When you start rationing electricity and healthcare, people will react strongly. Add to that the unfunded liabilities of medicare and social security, America's kids may be in for a very turbulent future...
Click to expand...

Buy you XM8 as soon as you can!

xm8-poster.jpg
 
#146
#146
volinbham said:
Think of the folks with historic homes - ordinances ban certain modifications to maintain National Historic status but clearly some serious retrofitting (and highly expensive) would jeopardize that status.

I had a 1930's home - I'd hate to think about changing out the original (and beautiful) leaded class/wood frame windows before I could sell it.
Click to expand...

Excellent point...
 
#148
#148
I would still like to hear the rationale as to why they felt they had to go this route as opposed to aggressive tax credits....

I don't mean to sound like I'm behind this idea when I go on and on about energy efficiency, because I am confused by this approach. My main point is just that energy efficiency will be one of the most important means of achieving the type of emissions reductions they hope to achieve...but why this way?
 
#149
#149
TennTradition said:
I would still like to hear the rationale as to why they felt they had to go this route as opposed to aggressive tax credits....

I don't mean to sound like I'm behind this idea when I go on and on about energy efficiency, because I am confused by this approach. My main point is just that energy efficiency will be one of the most important means of achieving the type of emissions reductions they hope to achieve...but why this way?
Click to expand...

tyranny.jpg
 
#150
#150
TennTradition said:
I would still like to hear the rationale as to why they felt they had to go this route as opposed to aggressive tax credits....

I don't mean to sound like I'm behind this idea when I go on and on about energy efficiency, because I am confused by this approach. My main point is just that energy efficiency will be one of the most important means of achieving the type of emissions reductions they hope to achieve...but why this way?
Click to expand...

I simply don't think Democrats generally think in terms of tax credits and favor regulation instead. A generalization to be sure.

Given the way Pelosi is running the House, the R's don't get much input into bill development.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top