http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXnn4K2yUD8

Thanks again, Love your blog

From HR2454, final language the auction process is still in the bill, so nothing is invalidated. in fact, I can’t even find where they’re given away, execpt by ‘Reverse Auction’ (not a give away) or “The Administrator may provide for the distribution of emission allowances pursuant to— ‘‘(A) a reverse auction method, similar to that described under subsection (d)(3), including the use of separate auctions for different project categories; or
‘‘(B) an incentive schedule, similar to that described under subsection (d)(4), which shall ensure that incentives are set so as to satisfy the requirement described in subsection (d)(4)(E).”

So it reads to my (disclaimer IaNaL) that the credits that might be ‘given’ still require incentives. So rather than flat out paying the government for the right to producem you can be ‘given’ credits for spending money to comply with their hoops.

It’s obivious by now that Tano cannot a) accept when he’s wrong b) understand that he’s so predictable that rather than accepting when someone conceeds an error he tries to dance on the mistake, thus falling into my clever trap and c) will ignore anything that disproves his worldview.

What makes this sad is it means he’s less of a man than President Obama.

it also explains Tano-nomics. “Energy prices are low for source a, and high for source b. We’ll make a as expensive as b and then say that we’re not raising the cost of energy, since b remained the same.”

THe price of fossil-based energy will go up. The cost of non-fossil-based energy will not go up. The net sum may be an increase in the short term, but a saving in the long term, as the country transitions to cleaner, renewable (and domestic) energy sources.

If renewable energy were cheaper, there would be no need to artificially increase the price of fossil fuels. Tano and his fellow leftists whine and cry about “renewables” being better, but cannot make things work without massive government subsidy.

Again, the whole idea here is redistribution of wealth and control. Obama wants to steal from the productive. Tano supports Obama because, as a welfare addict, Tano thinks he will benefit and Tano is simply jealous of those who work and are productive. He is a classic moocher.

Gee, somehow I had a sneaking suspicion that what seemed on the surface to be an outbreak of intellectual honesty and integrity was really something else. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt however. Silly me.

But I really dont understand your point. You were mistaken originally. And then you made another mistake – by claiming that cap and trade refers to capping energy production. It doesn’t.

I am not sure what you find to be so clever about such a mistake.

“Can you not accept that if the government restricts a production method that is cheeper, more efficient, and more pratical than any other it will increase the price?”

Sure. Where did I say anything contrary to that?
THe issue here was whether the permits are being auctioned, imposing a 200b hit on energy bills. Not the case.

THe price of fossil-based energy will go up. The cost of non-fossil-based energy will not go up. The net sum may be an increase in the short term, but a saving in the long term, as the country transitions to cleaner, renewable (and domestic) energy sources.

I dont know what kind of silliness you are referring to with your last links. I am sure that I am greatly straining my welcome here already (I get told that on a regular basis). I often have 4 or 5 people talking at me – and I think it rather ungracious of you to pretend that I dont make valient efforts to respond to whatever gets thrown at me. But no, I do have a life, and a need to work for a living, so I cannot answer every challange by every commenter here, especially the long screeds.

Don’t you mean shift wealth for purposes of social justice? Van Jones talked all about it…

Bruce, many libs still believe that the whole global warming BS is actually about global warming (despite the fact that the globe is cooling) and not about Marxism. They didnt wake up when the IPCC models upon which ALL global warming claims are predicated proved to be incapable or predicting even the current climate, they didnt wake up when the UN that is behind those models and is behind the whole kyoto crap recognized Fidel Castro as a world hero, they refuse OUTRIGHT to even consider any of the vast evidence against global warming because they dont give a crap about science, and they dont give a crap about the devastating consequences to peoples standard of living around the world, this is their f*cked up empty religion.

Don’t you mean shift wealth for purposes of social justice? Van Jones talked all about it…

Bruce, many libs still believe that the whole global warming BS is actually about global warming (despite the fact that the globe is cooling) and not about Marxism. They didnt wake up when the IPCC models upon which ALL global warming claims are predicated proved to be incapable or predicting even the current climate, they didnt wake up when the UN that is behind those models and is behind the whole kyoto crap recognized Fidel Castro as a world hero, they refuse OUTRIGHT to even consider any of the vast evidence against global warming because they dont give a crap about science, and they dont give a crap about the devastating consequences to peoples standard of living around the world, this is their fucked up empty religion.

What I wrote is called ‘accepting I made a mistake’ I understand such a thing is an alien concept to you, since you still cling to such debunked beliefs as ‘the whole world, no wait, the western hemisphere, no wait the administration accepts that Honduras enforcing its constitution is a coupy’ Or that President Obama didn’t lie. Or that there’s a reason those evil businesses are not looking at more costly less efficient ways of producing a product.

So why does it fall to the regular posters to teach you about basic economics? Can you not accept a set of facts that contradict your worldview? Did you not THINK before you posted? Is humility beyond you? Can you not accept that if the government restricts a production method that is cheeper, more efficient, and more pratical than any other it will increase the price? Can you not understand his admited plan is for energy pricesto increase?

Or is your plan to now avoid any confrontation of your limited world view, like you have in the past.

Did you not read the whole article yourself? Or are you so unfamiliar with the subjects you write about that you didn’t catch the problem that I pointed out? Did you not THINK for two minutes about what you read before dashing off a screed that falsely charges the President with lying? Or was this all intentional ?

That is the whole point of this bill. It is NOT to cut energy production, it is to shift to cleaner, renewable sources.

Energy production is not capped. Carbon emissions are. Produce your energy without emissions (hey, nuclear works!, or solar, or wind or hydro etc.), and there is no limitation.

SHOCKER! CBS News Blows Hole In Another Obama Lie

And people said that hole in the ozone layer wasn’t good for somethin’…

Ha.

Ok, I misunderstood how the ‘auctions’ worked. I didn’t have a chance to read the article until I got home.

It doesn’t change however, that attempting to ‘cap’ energy production can’t not result in a increase of price. Supply and demand.

Add to the deficit how?

You are not paying attention Gene. The 200b. WOULD HAVE BEEN added to energy bills IF the permits were to be auctioned, which they WILL NOT BE, under the House bill.

No MAtt, its actually quite simple. If the permits are auctioned, they raise 200billion dollars, and the presumption is that that amount is added to our energy bills, kinda like a tax increase.
But the permits are not being auctioned.
So, thats it. No deeper explanation needed.

Brilliant!

You are the only liar here.