Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on June 11, 2015 at 23:34

Well, this has been an interesting thread. What we have is a full circle. As this Country started out we fought a revolution over taxation without representation. Now we are going back in the direction of taxation without representation. Taxation by bureaucrats and international  agencies without the input of Congress. The other interesting thing this has shown is that some people start calling names, making innuendo and statements that have no basis in fact. I guess that simply shows desperation for their cause.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Francis Mayo on June 12, 2015 at 11:43

Yes, I have noted that. It also seems the use of straw men and mixing issues are mind blowing. Others are called out for this, and often spoken down to. Some missed their calling, they would have made a wonderful GS-12 or above government bureaucrat. Either that, or have their tail parked on the board of a multinational while receiving a check from a NGO. However, they are not all that; the desperation really becomes head scratching. So, let us trade carbon credits. That will enrich the correct mix of people and burden the unenlightened. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max on June 12, 2015 at 2:02

Joe, when we look to the heavens and glorify those brave folks who stood up to those nasty Brits trying to tax poor Americans without representation, we need to remember that it was those poor Americans who were crying for their mother country to protect them from the French and hostile Indians.  The British provided that protection ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in today's dollars) and when they asked for re-payment in the form of a small tax, we told them to go jump.  The British people didn't like their tax dollars sent overseas to protect American interest, so they pressured their government to re-coop those tax dollars.

The British does not indulge in humor, so they imposed a tax.  A tax so small, it would be like Wal-mart charging an extra two cents for the parking space you're occupying while you shop.  The amount of the tax didn't matter, there were some thugs (some of them were founding fathers) in Boston that thought that the Brits were too much into their smuggling business and they more or less drummed up the whole tax issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on June 12, 2015 at 3:50

When you put it that way...almost makes one feel dirty being an American...huh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on June 12, 2015 at 3:53

Max,

You seem to forget that without us Americans coming to England's defense in WWII they would be speaking German now. I think any debt we owed back in the 1700's has been paid in full.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on June 12, 2015 at 5:42

I would say repaid many times over. Not being a historian, I am not totally convinced of the accuracy of Max's "facts", but I am old enough to say that I am very certain that Joe's facts are correct!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 12, 2015 at 5:48

History is a good teacher for those willing to learn.  In this specific case I would recommend a wiki on acid rain.  Here is a short excerpt:

Meanwhile, in 1989, the U.S. Congress passed a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act. Title IV of these amendments established the Acid Rain Program, a cap and trade system designed to control emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Title IV called for a total reduction of about 10 million tons of SO₂ emissions from power plants. It was implemented in two phases. Phase I began in 1995, and limited sulfur dioxide emissions from 110 of the largest power plants to a combined total of 8.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide. One power plant in New England (Merrimack) was in Phase I. Four other plants (Newington, Mount Tom, Brayton Point, and Salem Harbor) were added under other provisions of the program. Phase II began in 2000, and affects most of the power plants in the country.

During the 1990s, research continued. On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This rule provides states with a solution to the problem of power plant pollution that drifts from one state to another. CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO₂ and NO_x in the eastern United States. When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO₂ emissions in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia by over 70% and NO_x emissions by over 60% from 2003 levels.^[18]

Overall, the program's cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO₂ emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.^[19][20] Conventional regulation was utilized in the European Union, which saw a decrease of over 70% in SO₂ emissions during the same time period.^[21]

In 2007, total SO₂ emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long-term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.^[22]

In 2007 the EPA estimated that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers would be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.^[19] Forbes says: In 2010, by which time the cap and trade system had been augmented by the George W. Bush administration’s Clean Air Interstate Rule, SO2 emissions had fallen to 5.1 million tons. ^[23]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on June 12, 2015 at 6:20

That is or was aimed at the coal industry because of sulfur contained in the coal. I don't see a direct tax being levied. Its just put the coal industry out of business. If it weren't for the low price of NG we would be in a severe financial depression because of additional costs for electrical energy associated with coal production. This new direction is directed at the use of carbon fuels in general and is going to be controlled by bureaucrats and international groups. So, Skip, if I understand you correctly; You are saying the EPA can enact or enlarge any rule or law that was enacted in 1989 to lessen the amount of sulfur in emissions and now can use this to cover carbon in general. Is that right? Is that what Congress intended?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 12, 2015 at 7:06

Once upon a time partisans claimed that acid rain was not a problem - until it progressed to the point even the deniers fell silent.  Dire predictions were made about the cost of the regulations.  They did not materialize. 

The industry doesn't matter.  The science does.  I hear the deniers and doomsayers making the same arguments about climate change as they did about acid rain.  We are all too quickly approaching the day when the climate change deniers will fall silent - swamped by the insurmountable and painfully obvious manifestations of global warming.  I fear that the difference is that acid rain was a regional problem with a straight forward solution that proved to be worth the cost. Global warming - unchecked - is likely to be none of the above.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on June 12, 2015 at 8:37

Skip,

You did not answer my question. Does the EPA and international groups have the authority to enact rules and taxes using a 1989 law that was intended to limit the emission of sulfur? Is this what Congress intended? Again, If this is the premise then this is very dangerous.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on June 12, 2015 at 15:20

LOL............ Thank you Francis!!!!!!! I think the piece speaks for its self. Thanks again!!!!!!

I could not get GHS to add the reply after your post so I moved it up here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Francis Mayo on June 12, 2015 at 15:04

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-ab...

Speaking of dire predictions? It is all based on rational science? Just like the movie trying to scare people over ten years ago. Al Gore trotted out the latest scientific studies and assured us the temperature would be past a tipping point by the end of the first decade of this century. Yes, we have any number of smart fellers telling us this and the fact multinationals, wanting a monopoly, would get in on the ground floor is not "unlikely." Let us just gimmick and finagle a way to maintain control and monopoly. This whole push has SCAM written all over it.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page