<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_01_1959239</id>
	<title>What the US Can Learn From Europe's Pollution Credit System</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246435860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/" rel="nofollow">Al</a> writes <i>"Technology Review discusses <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22851/">what a US carbon trading scheme could learn from the flawed European experience</a>. Advocates of carbon-trading schemes like to point to Europe's cap-and-trade program as a model worthy of emulation, but the reality has been less than perfect. A glut of pollution credits, distributed without cost during both the first, transitional phase of the program and the current working phase, drove down the value of the EUAs. As a result, Europe's carbon dioxide emissions remain priced well below 20 euros per ton. With the price of pollution so low, economists say, industries that generate and consume energy have no incentives to change their habits; it is still cheaper to use fossil fuels than to switch to technologies that pollute less. Establishing a carbon price in the US system now, and tightening the system later, could send a dangerously wrong signal to financial markets looking to invest in new energy technologies."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Al writes " Technology Review discusses what a US carbon trading scheme could learn from the flawed European experience .
Advocates of carbon-trading schemes like to point to Europe 's cap-and-trade program as a model worthy of emulation , but the reality has been less than perfect .
A glut of pollution credits , distributed without cost during both the first , transitional phase of the program and the current working phase , drove down the value of the EUAs .
As a result , Europe 's carbon dioxide emissions remain priced well below 20 euros per ton .
With the price of pollution so low , economists say , industries that generate and consume energy have no incentives to change their habits ; it is still cheaper to use fossil fuels than to switch to technologies that pollute less .
Establishing a carbon price in the US system now , and tightening the system later , could send a dangerously wrong signal to financial markets looking to invest in new energy technologies .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al writes "Technology Review discusses what a US carbon trading scheme could learn from the flawed European experience.
Advocates of carbon-trading schemes like to point to Europe's cap-and-trade program as a model worthy of emulation, but the reality has been less than perfect.
A glut of pollution credits, distributed without cost during both the first, transitional phase of the program and the current working phase, drove down the value of the EUAs.
As a result, Europe's carbon dioxide emissions remain priced well below 20 euros per ton.
With the price of pollution so low, economists say, industries that generate and consume energy have no incentives to change their habits; it is still cheaper to use fossil fuels than to switch to technologies that pollute less.
Establishing a carbon price in the US system now, and tightening the system later, could send a dangerously wrong signal to financial markets looking to invest in new energy technologies.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549207</id>
	<title>better question:</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1246441440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>who gives a shit?  this is political/financial news, not news for nerds.  TFA never mentions new tech, emerging tech,or existing tech in ANY light that seems slashworthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>who gives a shit ?
this is political/financial news , not news for nerds .
TFA never mentions new tech , emerging tech,or existing tech in ANY light that seems slashworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who gives a shit?
this is political/financial news, not news for nerds.
TFA never mentions new tech, emerging tech,or existing tech in ANY light that seems slashworthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549079</id>
	<title>Buying the right to pollute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246441020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all for reducing emissions, higher efficiency equipment and all that but this seems like just another attempt to use 'protecting the environment' as merely another tool to bring in more revenue for the government while at the same time creating an artificial industry that would not exist in an actual free market at all. The industries keep polluting the same except now they are paying more tax for it. <br> <br>

The same goes for the 'pay as you drive' GPS tracking system. Bring in a system like this now under the name of protecting the environment while most cars still burn petrol and have a guaranteed revenue stream for when everyone is driving electric cars. This carbon trading and carbon offsetting business is all bullshit and a great way of making money out of people who don't know any better<br> <br>

Soon you will see companies building pipelines and sending the smoke down to a country that charges less for the emissions. What if you pump it into a chimney 12 miles into the ocean? what if you buy an old rustbarge and set up your factory in the high seas? for some businesses this might be worth doing, but we're all pumping out carbon into the same atmosphere so it doesn't really matter a damn how much you pay for it. <br> <br>

If you really want less pollution and more money push up the price of the fuel, the odds are that the stuff will be burned at some stage after being bought and all this saves the trouble of bringing in a separate system for measuring and trading emissions. This carbon trading stuff seems too bureaucratic altogether - do I get paid for removing carbon dioxide from the air and putting it into bottles, if i have a plot of land with a few trees do they pay me? they should. but they probably don't, ya know why? because it's just a money making scam. a stealth tax if you like</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for reducing emissions , higher efficiency equipment and all that but this seems like just another attempt to use 'protecting the environment ' as merely another tool to bring in more revenue for the government while at the same time creating an artificial industry that would not exist in an actual free market at all .
The industries keep polluting the same except now they are paying more tax for it .
The same goes for the 'pay as you drive ' GPS tracking system .
Bring in a system like this now under the name of protecting the environment while most cars still burn petrol and have a guaranteed revenue stream for when everyone is driving electric cars .
This carbon trading and carbon offsetting business is all bullshit and a great way of making money out of people who do n't know any better Soon you will see companies building pipelines and sending the smoke down to a country that charges less for the emissions .
What if you pump it into a chimney 12 miles into the ocean ?
what if you buy an old rustbarge and set up your factory in the high seas ?
for some businesses this might be worth doing , but we 're all pumping out carbon into the same atmosphere so it does n't really matter a damn how much you pay for it .
If you really want less pollution and more money push up the price of the fuel , the odds are that the stuff will be burned at some stage after being bought and all this saves the trouble of bringing in a separate system for measuring and trading emissions .
This carbon trading stuff seems too bureaucratic altogether - do I get paid for removing carbon dioxide from the air and putting it into bottles , if i have a plot of land with a few trees do they pay me ?
they should .
but they probably do n't , ya know why ?
because it 's just a money making scam .
a stealth tax if you like</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for reducing emissions, higher efficiency equipment and all that but this seems like just another attempt to use 'protecting the environment' as merely another tool to bring in more revenue for the government while at the same time creating an artificial industry that would not exist in an actual free market at all.
The industries keep polluting the same except now they are paying more tax for it.
The same goes for the 'pay as you drive' GPS tracking system.
Bring in a system like this now under the name of protecting the environment while most cars still burn petrol and have a guaranteed revenue stream for when everyone is driving electric cars.
This carbon trading and carbon offsetting business is all bullshit and a great way of making money out of people who don't know any better 

Soon you will see companies building pipelines and sending the smoke down to a country that charges less for the emissions.
What if you pump it into a chimney 12 miles into the ocean?
what if you buy an old rustbarge and set up your factory in the high seas?
for some businesses this might be worth doing, but we're all pumping out carbon into the same atmosphere so it doesn't really matter a damn how much you pay for it.
If you really want less pollution and more money push up the price of the fuel, the odds are that the stuff will be burned at some stage after being bought and all this saves the trouble of bringing in a separate system for measuring and trading emissions.
This carbon trading stuff seems too bureaucratic altogether - do I get paid for removing carbon dioxide from the air and putting it into bottles, if i have a plot of land with a few trees do they pay me?
they should.
but they probably don't, ya know why?
because it's just a money making scam.
a stealth tax if you like</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548989</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1246440780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously when, by his logic, my electricity should actually cost about 0.8 cents per kilowatt-hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously when , by his logic , my electricity should actually cost about 0.8 cents per kilowatt-hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously when, by his logic, my electricity should actually cost about 0.8 cents per kilowatt-hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548785</id>
	<title>And one lesson you can learn *before* failing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246440180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other important consideration is making sure you don't just shift the problem.  If only a few countries, or even most of them agree to restrictions, the rest of the world will shrug its collective shoulders, and take on the fossil fuel burning and productino that the nicer countries have kept themselves from doing.  Specifically, the BRIC block (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).</p><p>Any plan for such a global problem MUST take into account the actions of such "defecting" countries, or you might as well not bother.  That can mean using auction revenues to sink CO2, tariffing non-compliant countries (though with blanket punitive tariff on all of their products; it's too much work to figure out the marginal CO2 impact of any one product when they're not pricing its cost in), and yes, even geoengineering.</p><p>"Unilateral disarmament" is symbolic at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other important consideration is making sure you do n't just shift the problem .
If only a few countries , or even most of them agree to restrictions , the rest of the world will shrug its collective shoulders , and take on the fossil fuel burning and productino that the nicer countries have kept themselves from doing .
Specifically , the BRIC block ( Brazil , Russia , India , and China ) .Any plan for such a global problem MUST take into account the actions of such " defecting " countries , or you might as well not bother .
That can mean using auction revenues to sink CO2 , tariffing non-compliant countries ( though with blanket punitive tariff on all of their products ; it 's too much work to figure out the marginal CO2 impact of any one product when they 're not pricing its cost in ) , and yes , even geoengineering .
" Unilateral disarmament " is symbolic at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other important consideration is making sure you don't just shift the problem.
If only a few countries, or even most of them agree to restrictions, the rest of the world will shrug its collective shoulders, and take on the fossil fuel burning and productino that the nicer countries have kept themselves from doing.
Specifically, the BRIC block (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).Any plan for such a global problem MUST take into account the actions of such "defecting" countries, or you might as well not bother.
That can mean using auction revenues to sink CO2, tariffing non-compliant countries (though with blanket punitive tariff on all of their products; it's too much work to figure out the marginal CO2 impact of any one product when they're not pricing its cost in), and yes, even geoengineering.
"Unilateral disarmament" is symbolic at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549545</id>
	<title>Put me in the "It won't work camp"</title>
	<author>TheJodster</author>
	<datestamp>1246442400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will probably be blasted by all the environmentalists in the group, but this simply won't work.  My office is two hundred feet from a coal fired power plant.  They are upgrading their pollution controls right now.  They are spending over $200 million on it.  There is a new plant scheduled to be online in a matter of months right next to it.  This is the cheapest source of power in the area.  It employs hundreds of people.  My company had thousands of people last year.  The cost of electricity shut us down.  All of my friends are sitting at home drawing unemployment.  I don't know what they are going to do when their benefits are exhausted.  High electricity costs will drive jobs out of America.  Power is the primary cost of many manufacturing processes.  All manufacturing where power is the primary driver will be done in China, Mexico, Brazil, Iceland, etc.  It will be done where there are no carbon credits to buy and the environmental laws are lax.  Business goes where its cheap to operate.</p><p>You aren't saving the environment by driving out business.  The president cited California as an example of good energy policy.  A lot of power consumed in California comes from neighboring states that don't have such strict regulations.  The government of California is broke.  They may not be able to make payroll next month.  Is that where we want America to go?  Is that our future model?</p><p>We are going to drive our businesses overseas.  These foreign countries will build power plants to supply their new found industry.  They won't care much about pollution other than to pay lip service to it.  By the time we are finished cleaning up America's air, we'll all be sitting on our thumbs with no jobs lamenting our plight.  On the upside, the air we are breathing during this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth may perhaps be slightly cleaner than before.  If your goal is to reverse global climate change, you are sadly mistaken if you think this will fix it.  Other nations will fill in the production gaps.  They don't give a crap about the environment.  They want power.  You gain power by having a happy, well fed, and prosperous population.  This is done through industry and jobs.  The pollution will simply be outsourced along with your job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will probably be blasted by all the environmentalists in the group , but this simply wo n't work .
My office is two hundred feet from a coal fired power plant .
They are upgrading their pollution controls right now .
They are spending over $ 200 million on it .
There is a new plant scheduled to be online in a matter of months right next to it .
This is the cheapest source of power in the area .
It employs hundreds of people .
My company had thousands of people last year .
The cost of electricity shut us down .
All of my friends are sitting at home drawing unemployment .
I do n't know what they are going to do when their benefits are exhausted .
High electricity costs will drive jobs out of America .
Power is the primary cost of many manufacturing processes .
All manufacturing where power is the primary driver will be done in China , Mexico , Brazil , Iceland , etc .
It will be done where there are no carbon credits to buy and the environmental laws are lax .
Business goes where its cheap to operate.You are n't saving the environment by driving out business .
The president cited California as an example of good energy policy .
A lot of power consumed in California comes from neighboring states that do n't have such strict regulations .
The government of California is broke .
They may not be able to make payroll next month .
Is that where we want America to go ?
Is that our future model ? We are going to drive our businesses overseas .
These foreign countries will build power plants to supply their new found industry .
They wo n't care much about pollution other than to pay lip service to it .
By the time we are finished cleaning up America 's air , we 'll all be sitting on our thumbs with no jobs lamenting our plight .
On the upside , the air we are breathing during this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth may perhaps be slightly cleaner than before .
If your goal is to reverse global climate change , you are sadly mistaken if you think this will fix it .
Other nations will fill in the production gaps .
They do n't give a crap about the environment .
They want power .
You gain power by having a happy , well fed , and prosperous population .
This is done through industry and jobs .
The pollution will simply be outsourced along with your job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will probably be blasted by all the environmentalists in the group, but this simply won't work.
My office is two hundred feet from a coal fired power plant.
They are upgrading their pollution controls right now.
They are spending over $200 million on it.
There is a new plant scheduled to be online in a matter of months right next to it.
This is the cheapest source of power in the area.
It employs hundreds of people.
My company had thousands of people last year.
The cost of electricity shut us down.
All of my friends are sitting at home drawing unemployment.
I don't know what they are going to do when their benefits are exhausted.
High electricity costs will drive jobs out of America.
Power is the primary cost of many manufacturing processes.
All manufacturing where power is the primary driver will be done in China, Mexico, Brazil, Iceland, etc.
It will be done where there are no carbon credits to buy and the environmental laws are lax.
Business goes where its cheap to operate.You aren't saving the environment by driving out business.
The president cited California as an example of good energy policy.
A lot of power consumed in California comes from neighboring states that don't have such strict regulations.
The government of California is broke.
They may not be able to make payroll next month.
Is that where we want America to go?
Is that our future model?We are going to drive our businesses overseas.
These foreign countries will build power plants to supply their new found industry.
They won't care much about pollution other than to pay lip service to it.
By the time we are finished cleaning up America's air, we'll all be sitting on our thumbs with no jobs lamenting our plight.
On the upside, the air we are breathing during this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth may perhaps be slightly cleaner than before.
If your goal is to reverse global climate change, you are sadly mistaken if you think this will fix it.
Other nations will fill in the production gaps.
They don't give a crap about the environment.
They want power.
You gain power by having a happy, well fed, and prosperous population.
This is done through industry and jobs.
The pollution will simply be outsourced along with your job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554239</id>
	<title>Re:Put me in the "It won't work camp"</title>
	<author>TheJodster</author>
	<datestamp>1246473960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand your point.  I also acknowledge that California's utter financial failure is not solely due to environmental policy.  The discussion here revolves around carbon credits so I was limiting my commentary to energy policy.  There are many factors in California's crisis.  Energy policy, outrageous taxes and cost of living are big drivers, though.</p><p>I am not a fool chasing windmills disguised as environmentalists.  The deregulated power industry put me in the spot I am in.  These carbon credits won't fix it.  If power goes up any more than it already has, there is no hope whatsoever of my plant restarting.  They will add another production line in some other country and I will move, exit this business, or find another line of work.  There are other facilities in my company here in the USA that are still struggling along right now.  Carbon credits will add to their cost and they will be shut down just like we were.  That's a simple fact.  If the current administration pushes this issue as hard as they say they will, all heavy manufacturing that deals with pollutants will simply exit the U.S.</p><p>We can control pollution to a certain extent by demanding more from the industries causing the problem.  However, the point of diminishing returns is reached rapidly and it will cause a mass exodus of certain types of business.  Business that employs lots of people with good paying jobs that buy lots of computers, cars, groceries, houses, and so on.  These carbon credits will hurt many businesses and ruin others.  That will lead to further job loss and a worsening of the economy.  I'm a "computer guy" not an economist, but that much I do know.</p><p>I see your point and I know too well that companies will cry wolf every time the government holds their feet to the fire.  However, in this case, they aren't crying wolf.  Energy drives our economy and increasing it's cost will most certainly hurt our economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand your point .
I also acknowledge that California 's utter financial failure is not solely due to environmental policy .
The discussion here revolves around carbon credits so I was limiting my commentary to energy policy .
There are many factors in California 's crisis .
Energy policy , outrageous taxes and cost of living are big drivers , though.I am not a fool chasing windmills disguised as environmentalists .
The deregulated power industry put me in the spot I am in .
These carbon credits wo n't fix it .
If power goes up any more than it already has , there is no hope whatsoever of my plant restarting .
They will add another production line in some other country and I will move , exit this business , or find another line of work .
There are other facilities in my company here in the USA that are still struggling along right now .
Carbon credits will add to their cost and they will be shut down just like we were .
That 's a simple fact .
If the current administration pushes this issue as hard as they say they will , all heavy manufacturing that deals with pollutants will simply exit the U.S.We can control pollution to a certain extent by demanding more from the industries causing the problem .
However , the point of diminishing returns is reached rapidly and it will cause a mass exodus of certain types of business .
Business that employs lots of people with good paying jobs that buy lots of computers , cars , groceries , houses , and so on .
These carbon credits will hurt many businesses and ruin others .
That will lead to further job loss and a worsening of the economy .
I 'm a " computer guy " not an economist , but that much I do know.I see your point and I know too well that companies will cry wolf every time the government holds their feet to the fire .
However , in this case , they are n't crying wolf .
Energy drives our economy and increasing it 's cost will most certainly hurt our economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand your point.
I also acknowledge that California's utter financial failure is not solely due to environmental policy.
The discussion here revolves around carbon credits so I was limiting my commentary to energy policy.
There are many factors in California's crisis.
Energy policy, outrageous taxes and cost of living are big drivers, though.I am not a fool chasing windmills disguised as environmentalists.
The deregulated power industry put me in the spot I am in.
These carbon credits won't fix it.
If power goes up any more than it already has, there is no hope whatsoever of my plant restarting.
They will add another production line in some other country and I will move, exit this business, or find another line of work.
There are other facilities in my company here in the USA that are still struggling along right now.
Carbon credits will add to their cost and they will be shut down just like we were.
That's a simple fact.
If the current administration pushes this issue as hard as they say they will, all heavy manufacturing that deals with pollutants will simply exit the U.S.We can control pollution to a certain extent by demanding more from the industries causing the problem.
However, the point of diminishing returns is reached rapidly and it will cause a mass exodus of certain types of business.
Business that employs lots of people with good paying jobs that buy lots of computers, cars, groceries, houses, and so on.
These carbon credits will hurt many businesses and ruin others.
That will lead to further job loss and a worsening of the economy.
I'm a "computer guy" not an economist, but that much I do know.I see your point and I know too well that companies will cry wolf every time the government holds their feet to the fire.
However, in this case, they aren't crying wolf.
Energy drives our economy and increasing it's cost will most certainly hurt our economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28628577</id>
	<title>Or we could simply use taxes</title>
	<author>mr\_java66</author>
	<datestamp>1247048640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We could just simply put a 100B of Carbon Taxes into the mix and roll 100B of FICA/payroll Taxes out of the mix of the system of taxes.  And let the markets find a level and repeat the process as often as needed to get the Emission rate where you want it.  This would effect the markets by 1) Discouraging Carbon Emissions and 2) Reducing the Discouragement to Work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We could just simply put a 100B of Carbon Taxes into the mix and roll 100B of FICA/payroll Taxes out of the mix of the system of taxes .
And let the markets find a level and repeat the process as often as needed to get the Emission rate where you want it .
This would effect the markets by 1 ) Discouraging Carbon Emissions and 2 ) Reducing the Discouragement to Work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could just simply put a 100B of Carbon Taxes into the mix and roll 100B of FICA/payroll Taxes out of the mix of the system of taxes.
And let the markets find a level and repeat the process as often as needed to get the Emission rate where you want it.
This would effect the markets by 1) Discouraging Carbon Emissions and 2) Reducing the Discouragement to Work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550881</id>
	<title>The US cap and trade bill is a corprate give away</title>
	<author>modmans2ndcoming</author>
	<datestamp>1246447380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And will lead to nothing more than a bubble.</p><p>The carbon credit trading system talked about in the bill sets up a market that requires credit default swaps to collateralize the purchases, it also takes credits away from renewable sources of energy and gives them to the coal industry.</p><p>Check out what Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio has to say on the subject. There is a reason the Democratic house barely passed it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And will lead to nothing more than a bubble.The carbon credit trading system talked about in the bill sets up a market that requires credit default swaps to collateralize the purchases , it also takes credits away from renewable sources of energy and gives them to the coal industry.Check out what Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio has to say on the subject .
There is a reason the Democratic house barely passed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And will lead to nothing more than a bubble.The carbon credit trading system talked about in the bill sets up a market that requires credit default swaps to collateralize the purchases, it also takes credits away from renewable sources of energy and gives them to the coal industry.Check out what Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio has to say on the subject.
There is a reason the Democratic house barely passed it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549913</id>
	<title>Re:Cap and Trade Issues</title>
	<author>sampson7</author>
	<datestamp>1246443480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So much wrong, so little time.<blockquote><div><p>Consider this: a government says "Ok, we'll only sell licenses to produce 100 million tons of CO2 per year." Factories produce a net 130 million tons of CO2 that year, even though they were only licensed to produce 100 million. There is no mechanism the government can employ to enforce the licenses. They could potentially fine the "overproduction" but that doesn't actually prevent the production of the CO2.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The whole point is that the fine eliminates the economic incentive for a company to violate the permitting requirements.  Sure, someone can always violate the law, but a sufficiently large fine (usually some multiple of what it would have cost to comply), coupled with a compliance monitoring system, removes the incentives to cheat.  Liken it to robbing someone.  Sure, I can steal a little old lady's purse, but the potential downsides are significant.</p><blockquote><div><p>The way I understand it, if I do some activity that offsets CO2 production, I get a credit. The problem is that word "offset". If it was only for sequestration that would be great, but my impression is that if I create a wind farm that produces the same power as a coal plant that would produce 1 million tons, I get a 1 million ton CO2 credit that I can sell to someone else. But since it's possible to create an infinite amount of things that do not emit CO2, there is no cap here either because it doesn't actually prevent the creation of more CO2 - or whatever the target emission might be.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Your understanding is not correct.  You receive offsets when you either:  (1) sequester carbon, or (2) directly eliminate existing point-source carbon emissions.  Creating a windfarm will not provide you additional carbon emissions credits, while planting/preserving a forest or closing down a coal-fired power plant would.  You may be mixing up the concept of a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligation which requires utilities to acquire a certain percentage of their power from renewable resources with cap-and-trade.  <br> <br>Note, however, that cap-and-trade provides a significant boost to lower carbon generation resources.  When a power plant determines the cost of its energy, a cap and trade provides an economic value to the emissions credits.  The electricity produced by a wind farm that has no carbon costs is put at a relative competitive advantage to a coal plant.</p><blockquote><div><p>The biggest issue I see is that CO2 is a byproduct of simply being alive, so you will get into the mess of "do you tax all CO2 emissions, or only those made by machines? What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard? What about campfires?"</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Actually, the law already takes this into consideration.  Almost all environmental laws apply to stationary "point sources" that emit more than a specified amount each year.  The quantity that it takes to be a regulated point source of emissions depends on the specific chemical be emitted, but is typically sized so that only large emiters are required to comply.</p><blockquote><div><p>The only real solution is, even though it's not political, is to simply tax CO2 emissions straight up. Those who don't emit don't pay the tax, those who do pay it. For consumers it's simple - you roll it into fuel taxes because CO2 emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption. For powerplants and such you do the same, and the taxes get passed on to consumers.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Nothing inherently wrong with a carbon tax.  But it does not permit businesses to compete to eliminate carbon emissions at the lowest price.  It also increases the price of certain staple commodities by an enormous amount.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So much wrong , so little time.Consider this : a government says " Ok , we 'll only sell licenses to produce 100 million tons of CO2 per year .
" Factories produce a net 130 million tons of CO2 that year , even though they were only licensed to produce 100 million .
There is no mechanism the government can employ to enforce the licenses .
They could potentially fine the " overproduction " but that does n't actually prevent the production of the CO2 .
The whole point is that the fine eliminates the economic incentive for a company to violate the permitting requirements .
Sure , someone can always violate the law , but a sufficiently large fine ( usually some multiple of what it would have cost to comply ) , coupled with a compliance monitoring system , removes the incentives to cheat .
Liken it to robbing someone .
Sure , I can steal a little old lady 's purse , but the potential downsides are significant.The way I understand it , if I do some activity that offsets CO2 production , I get a credit .
The problem is that word " offset " .
If it was only for sequestration that would be great , but my impression is that if I create a wind farm that produces the same power as a coal plant that would produce 1 million tons , I get a 1 million ton CO2 credit that I can sell to someone else .
But since it 's possible to create an infinite amount of things that do not emit CO2 , there is no cap here either because it does n't actually prevent the creation of more CO2 - or whatever the target emission might be .
Your understanding is not correct .
You receive offsets when you either : ( 1 ) sequester carbon , or ( 2 ) directly eliminate existing point-source carbon emissions .
Creating a windfarm will not provide you additional carbon emissions credits , while planting/preserving a forest or closing down a coal-fired power plant would .
You may be mixing up the concept of a Renewable Portfolio Standard ( RPS ) obligation which requires utilities to acquire a certain percentage of their power from renewable resources with cap-and-trade .
Note , however , that cap-and-trade provides a significant boost to lower carbon generation resources .
When a power plant determines the cost of its energy , a cap and trade provides an economic value to the emissions credits .
The electricity produced by a wind farm that has no carbon costs is put at a relative competitive advantage to a coal plant.The biggest issue I see is that CO2 is a byproduct of simply being alive , so you will get into the mess of " do you tax all CO2 emissions , or only those made by machines ?
What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard ?
What about campfires ?
" Actually , the law already takes this into consideration .
Almost all environmental laws apply to stationary " point sources " that emit more than a specified amount each year .
The quantity that it takes to be a regulated point source of emissions depends on the specific chemical be emitted , but is typically sized so that only large emiters are required to comply.The only real solution is , even though it 's not political , is to simply tax CO2 emissions straight up .
Those who do n't emit do n't pay the tax , those who do pay it .
For consumers it 's simple - you roll it into fuel taxes because CO2 emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption .
For powerplants and such you do the same , and the taxes get passed on to consumers .
Nothing inherently wrong with a carbon tax .
But it does not permit businesses to compete to eliminate carbon emissions at the lowest price .
It also increases the price of certain staple commodities by an enormous amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much wrong, so little time.Consider this: a government says "Ok, we'll only sell licenses to produce 100 million tons of CO2 per year.
" Factories produce a net 130 million tons of CO2 that year, even though they were only licensed to produce 100 million.
There is no mechanism the government can employ to enforce the licenses.
They could potentially fine the "overproduction" but that doesn't actually prevent the production of the CO2.
The whole point is that the fine eliminates the economic incentive for a company to violate the permitting requirements.
Sure, someone can always violate the law, but a sufficiently large fine (usually some multiple of what it would have cost to comply), coupled with a compliance monitoring system, removes the incentives to cheat.
Liken it to robbing someone.
Sure, I can steal a little old lady's purse, but the potential downsides are significant.The way I understand it, if I do some activity that offsets CO2 production, I get a credit.
The problem is that word "offset".
If it was only for sequestration that would be great, but my impression is that if I create a wind farm that produces the same power as a coal plant that would produce 1 million tons, I get a 1 million ton CO2 credit that I can sell to someone else.
But since it's possible to create an infinite amount of things that do not emit CO2, there is no cap here either because it doesn't actually prevent the creation of more CO2 - or whatever the target emission might be.
Your understanding is not correct.
You receive offsets when you either:  (1) sequester carbon, or (2) directly eliminate existing point-source carbon emissions.
Creating a windfarm will not provide you additional carbon emissions credits, while planting/preserving a forest or closing down a coal-fired power plant would.
You may be mixing up the concept of a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligation which requires utilities to acquire a certain percentage of their power from renewable resources with cap-and-trade.
Note, however, that cap-and-trade provides a significant boost to lower carbon generation resources.
When a power plant determines the cost of its energy, a cap and trade provides an economic value to the emissions credits.
The electricity produced by a wind farm that has no carbon costs is put at a relative competitive advantage to a coal plant.The biggest issue I see is that CO2 is a byproduct of simply being alive, so you will get into the mess of "do you tax all CO2 emissions, or only those made by machines?
What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard?
What about campfires?
"

Actually, the law already takes this into consideration.
Almost all environmental laws apply to stationary "point sources" that emit more than a specified amount each year.
The quantity that it takes to be a regulated point source of emissions depends on the specific chemical be emitted, but is typically sized so that only large emiters are required to comply.The only real solution is, even though it's not political, is to simply tax CO2 emissions straight up.
Those who don't emit don't pay the tax, those who do pay it.
For consumers it's simple - you roll it into fuel taxes because CO2 emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption.
For powerplants and such you do the same, and the taxes get passed on to consumers.
Nothing inherently wrong with a carbon tax.
But it does not permit businesses to compete to eliminate carbon emissions at the lowest price.
It also increases the price of certain staple commodities by an enormous amount.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549045</id>
	<title>breathing tax?</title>
	<author>TimSSG</author>
	<datestamp>1246440900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any Idea how they are going to tax breathing?<br>
I know they have not said they are going to do it; but, see option 3 I think the Libs will like it.<br>
The way I see are<br>
1. Flat rate per person<br>
2. Prorated based on the weight of person<br>
3. Just tax the calories in food.<br>
   (Carbon production in people is closely related to calorie intake)<br>

Tim S</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any Idea how they are going to tax breathing ?
I know they have not said they are going to do it ; but , see option 3 I think the Libs will like it .
The way I see are 1 .
Flat rate per person 2 .
Prorated based on the weight of person 3 .
Just tax the calories in food .
( Carbon production in people is closely related to calorie intake ) Tim S</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any Idea how they are going to tax breathing?
I know they have not said they are going to do it; but, see option 3 I think the Libs will like it.
The way I see are
1.
Flat rate per person
2.
Prorated based on the weight of person
3.
Just tax the calories in food.
(Carbon production in people is closely related to calorie intake)

Tim S</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549021</id>
	<title>The counterpoint</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1246440900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2009/06/29/carbon-trading-what-europe-can-actually-teach-us.aspx" title="tnr.com">this</a> [tnr.com] article points out (with a nice graph), the market has recovered from its initial missteps.  Carbon emissions have been trending down (even before the mega-recession began), and Europe is on track to meet the Kyoto requirements (8+\% below 1990 levels) by 2011.  The major problems had to do with a lack of data about <i>how much</i> carbon the European countries were emitting.  Therefore the cap was set too high.  There have been several adjustments since then, and the results have become much better.</p><p>One hopes that we'll be able to avoid this, since we have much better emissions data.  To my mind, the most important finding of the post above is that corporations are finding massive improvements in efficiency, since the cap has essentially set a price on emitting carbon.  This, plus technological development, is going to make the problem a lot less scary than conservative estimates would have you believe.</p><p>(Now there are various caveats.  The <i>really big one</i> being the ability of nations to "outsource" their emissions by importing from nations with no such caps.  But I don't think this is an argument for removing the caps --- rather, we should be finding ways to integrate the trading schemes of those nations with caps, and recover some of the carbon cost on imports from the other nations.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As this [ tnr.com ] article points out ( with a nice graph ) , the market has recovered from its initial missteps .
Carbon emissions have been trending down ( even before the mega-recession began ) , and Europe is on track to meet the Kyoto requirements ( 8 + \ % below 1990 levels ) by 2011 .
The major problems had to do with a lack of data about how much carbon the European countries were emitting .
Therefore the cap was set too high .
There have been several adjustments since then , and the results have become much better.One hopes that we 'll be able to avoid this , since we have much better emissions data .
To my mind , the most important finding of the post above is that corporations are finding massive improvements in efficiency , since the cap has essentially set a price on emitting carbon .
This , plus technological development , is going to make the problem a lot less scary than conservative estimates would have you believe .
( Now there are various caveats .
The really big one being the ability of nations to " outsource " their emissions by importing from nations with no such caps .
But I do n't think this is an argument for removing the caps --- rather , we should be finding ways to integrate the trading schemes of those nations with caps , and recover some of the carbon cost on imports from the other nations .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As this [tnr.com] article points out (with a nice graph), the market has recovered from its initial missteps.
Carbon emissions have been trending down (even before the mega-recession began), and Europe is on track to meet the Kyoto requirements (8+\% below 1990 levels) by 2011.
The major problems had to do with a lack of data about how much carbon the European countries were emitting.
Therefore the cap was set too high.
There have been several adjustments since then, and the results have become much better.One hopes that we'll be able to avoid this, since we have much better emissions data.
To my mind, the most important finding of the post above is that corporations are finding massive improvements in efficiency, since the cap has essentially set a price on emitting carbon.
This, plus technological development, is going to make the problem a lot less scary than conservative estimates would have you believe.
(Now there are various caveats.
The really big one being the ability of nations to "outsource" their emissions by importing from nations with no such caps.
But I don't think this is an argument for removing the caps --- rather, we should be finding ways to integrate the trading schemes of those nations with caps, and recover some of the carbon cost on imports from the other nations.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28553427</id>
	<title>Re:The counterpoint</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1246464240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe how stupid that article is. For example,<p><div class="quote"><p>And, while the House climate bill only auctions off 15 percent of its allowances, it does give a hefty number to heavily regulated electricity distributors, which are required by law to pass on savings to ratepayers. Some watchdog groups like Public Citizen are worried that these distributors will wriggle free of oversight, and that's a real concern, but in theory, there's a mechanism to avoid windfall utility profits.</p></div><p>I can tell you already, the "mechanism" above is to look stupid as these "heavily regulated" electricity distributors become the robber barons of the next decade. In theory, of course.<br> <br>

And it's an utterly stupid idea to lower the cap merely because demand didn't meet the cap. I also like how they ignored "initial kinks" in the Phase II of the market that lead to disastrous shifts in energy prices. It's also embarrassing how the only measure of success is emission reduction. We don't get any indication of how much smaller the EU economy is because of these cap and trade markets.<br> <br>

Finally, I see two fundamental problems with the EU system that is duplicated with the US system. First, the need for the markets or for that matter any sort of carbon emission restrictions have not been demonstrated. Second, the EU markets have "hard" caps which the US equivalents will implement, supposedly within ten years. That means that only a fixed number of emission credits can be sold in a year. This has lead directly to the complaint of the story above, namely that carbon emission credits are worthless until one nears the cap. Then there's an asymptotic inelasticity that results in hugely expensive credits when demand exceeds the hard cap (the so-called "initial kinks").<br> <br>

If you are going to have a carbon cap and trade system, the solution is to create a market with unlimited carbon credits, but such that the marginal cost of carbon credits increases as more are purchased. This is a "soft" cap. There's no abrupt discontinuities compared to hard cap systems and it can prop up the value of carbon credits even if demand declines (have the market owners buy back excess credits at declining prices as the market shrinks). This also reflects the underlying theory behind why carbon emissions are restricted. Namely, that at a certain level of emission, CO2 emissions cause a certain amount of harm per ton emitted. If the rate of emission is increased, then it is expected that CO2 emissions will cause a bit more harm per ton (especially considering that  "dangerous" thresholds would be reached sooner). At a sufficiently reduced rate of emission, there's no need to restrict carbon emissions. This also reflects that there can be sufficiently important reasons to produce more carbon dioxide even in a situation where global warming is a legitimate near future threat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe how stupid that article is .
For example,And , while the House climate bill only auctions off 15 percent of its allowances , it does give a hefty number to heavily regulated electricity distributors , which are required by law to pass on savings to ratepayers .
Some watchdog groups like Public Citizen are worried that these distributors will wriggle free of oversight , and that 's a real concern , but in theory , there 's a mechanism to avoid windfall utility profits.I can tell you already , the " mechanism " above is to look stupid as these " heavily regulated " electricity distributors become the robber barons of the next decade .
In theory , of course .
And it 's an utterly stupid idea to lower the cap merely because demand did n't meet the cap .
I also like how they ignored " initial kinks " in the Phase II of the market that lead to disastrous shifts in energy prices .
It 's also embarrassing how the only measure of success is emission reduction .
We do n't get any indication of how much smaller the EU economy is because of these cap and trade markets .
Finally , I see two fundamental problems with the EU system that is duplicated with the US system .
First , the need for the markets or for that matter any sort of carbon emission restrictions have not been demonstrated .
Second , the EU markets have " hard " caps which the US equivalents will implement , supposedly within ten years .
That means that only a fixed number of emission credits can be sold in a year .
This has lead directly to the complaint of the story above , namely that carbon emission credits are worthless until one nears the cap .
Then there 's an asymptotic inelasticity that results in hugely expensive credits when demand exceeds the hard cap ( the so-called " initial kinks " ) .
If you are going to have a carbon cap and trade system , the solution is to create a market with unlimited carbon credits , but such that the marginal cost of carbon credits increases as more are purchased .
This is a " soft " cap .
There 's no abrupt discontinuities compared to hard cap systems and it can prop up the value of carbon credits even if demand declines ( have the market owners buy back excess credits at declining prices as the market shrinks ) .
This also reflects the underlying theory behind why carbon emissions are restricted .
Namely , that at a certain level of emission , CO2 emissions cause a certain amount of harm per ton emitted .
If the rate of emission is increased , then it is expected that CO2 emissions will cause a bit more harm per ton ( especially considering that " dangerous " thresholds would be reached sooner ) .
At a sufficiently reduced rate of emission , there 's no need to restrict carbon emissions .
This also reflects that there can be sufficiently important reasons to produce more carbon dioxide even in a situation where global warming is a legitimate near future threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe how stupid that article is.
For example,And, while the House climate bill only auctions off 15 percent of its allowances, it does give a hefty number to heavily regulated electricity distributors, which are required by law to pass on savings to ratepayers.
Some watchdog groups like Public Citizen are worried that these distributors will wriggle free of oversight, and that's a real concern, but in theory, there's a mechanism to avoid windfall utility profits.I can tell you already, the "mechanism" above is to look stupid as these "heavily regulated" electricity distributors become the robber barons of the next decade.
In theory, of course.
And it's an utterly stupid idea to lower the cap merely because demand didn't meet the cap.
I also like how they ignored "initial kinks" in the Phase II of the market that lead to disastrous shifts in energy prices.
It's also embarrassing how the only measure of success is emission reduction.
We don't get any indication of how much smaller the EU economy is because of these cap and trade markets.
Finally, I see two fundamental problems with the EU system that is duplicated with the US system.
First, the need for the markets or for that matter any sort of carbon emission restrictions have not been demonstrated.
Second, the EU markets have "hard" caps which the US equivalents will implement, supposedly within ten years.
That means that only a fixed number of emission credits can be sold in a year.
This has lead directly to the complaint of the story above, namely that carbon emission credits are worthless until one nears the cap.
Then there's an asymptotic inelasticity that results in hugely expensive credits when demand exceeds the hard cap (the so-called "initial kinks").
If you are going to have a carbon cap and trade system, the solution is to create a market with unlimited carbon credits, but such that the marginal cost of carbon credits increases as more are purchased.
This is a "soft" cap.
There's no abrupt discontinuities compared to hard cap systems and it can prop up the value of carbon credits even if demand declines (have the market owners buy back excess credits at declining prices as the market shrinks).
This also reflects the underlying theory behind why carbon emissions are restricted.
Namely, that at a certain level of emission, CO2 emissions cause a certain amount of harm per ton emitted.
If the rate of emission is increased, then it is expected that CO2 emissions will cause a bit more harm per ton (especially considering that  "dangerous" thresholds would be reached sooner).
At a sufficiently reduced rate of emission, there's no need to restrict carbon emissions.
This also reflects that there can be sufficiently important reasons to produce more carbon dioxide even in a situation where global warming is a legitimate near future threat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</id>
	<title>Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246440060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about NOT burdening each and every citizen with higher energy costs for some forced and flawed utopian ideal which might result in a whopping 0.2 percent carbon emmissions. further wrecking the U.S. economy and industries.</p><p>If the new technologies being talked about, worked on, etc. are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation, too bad.</p><p>The solution would be to get the "new" technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation, not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this.</p><p>Sure, do all you can to help clean up the environment and to minimize or eliminate pollution. I am all for cleaner, greener, etc. I am not for more tax burdens on top of the already increased tax burdens I and many many others are now facing in this country.</p><p>The U.S. government is (and has been) in the hands of A) lunatics and B) people that couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it (the greatest majority of them, in any case).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about NOT burdening each and every citizen with higher energy costs for some forced and flawed utopian ideal which might result in a whopping 0.2 percent carbon emmissions .
further wrecking the U.S. economy and industries.If the new technologies being talked about , worked on , etc .
are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation , too bad.The solution would be to get the " new " technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation , not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this.Sure , do all you can to help clean up the environment and to minimize or eliminate pollution .
I am all for cleaner , greener , etc .
I am not for more tax burdens on top of the already increased tax burdens I and many many others are now facing in this country.The U.S. government is ( and has been ) in the hands of A ) lunatics and B ) people that could n't run a business if their lives depended on it ( the greatest majority of them , in any case ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about NOT burdening each and every citizen with higher energy costs for some forced and flawed utopian ideal which might result in a whopping 0.2 percent carbon emmissions.
further wrecking the U.S. economy and industries.If the new technologies being talked about, worked on, etc.
are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation, too bad.The solution would be to get the "new" technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation, not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this.Sure, do all you can to help clean up the environment and to minimize or eliminate pollution.
I am all for cleaner, greener, etc.
I am not for more tax burdens on top of the already increased tax burdens I and many many others are now facing in this country.The U.S. government is (and has been) in the hands of A) lunatics and B) people that couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it (the greatest majority of them, in any case).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551065</id>
	<title>Re:Put me in the "It won't work camp"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246448220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>High electricity costs will drive jobs out of America.  Power is the primary cost of many manufacturing processes.</p></div><p>Hmm, so you would claim that when someone buys a $100 pair of designer jeans, most of that $100 cost is due to the electricity needed to produce the jeans? I don't doubt that there are a few specific industries where the cost of electricity is a big factor (say, aluminum refining).</p><p>But when looking at why manufacturing generally is more expensive in the USA than other countries cost of electricity is way down the list. There's cost of living considerations generally - and health care costs specifically. There's cost of all kinds of other related services such as transportation.</p><p>Bottom line, if you actually believe that the cost of electricity is the only difference between the USA and, say, China - well, let's just say I've got some theories about Elvis and alien abductions that you may be interested in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>High electricity costs will drive jobs out of America .
Power is the primary cost of many manufacturing processes.Hmm , so you would claim that when someone buys a $ 100 pair of designer jeans , most of that $ 100 cost is due to the electricity needed to produce the jeans ?
I do n't doubt that there are a few specific industries where the cost of electricity is a big factor ( say , aluminum refining ) .But when looking at why manufacturing generally is more expensive in the USA than other countries cost of electricity is way down the list .
There 's cost of living considerations generally - and health care costs specifically .
There 's cost of all kinds of other related services such as transportation.Bottom line , if you actually believe that the cost of electricity is the only difference between the USA and , say , China - well , let 's just say I 've got some theories about Elvis and alien abductions that you may be interested in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>High electricity costs will drive jobs out of America.
Power is the primary cost of many manufacturing processes.Hmm, so you would claim that when someone buys a $100 pair of designer jeans, most of that $100 cost is due to the electricity needed to produce the jeans?
I don't doubt that there are a few specific industries where the cost of electricity is a big factor (say, aluminum refining).But when looking at why manufacturing generally is more expensive in the USA than other countries cost of electricity is way down the list.
There's cost of living considerations generally - and health care costs specifically.
There's cost of all kinds of other related services such as transportation.Bottom line, if you actually believe that the cost of electricity is the only difference between the USA and, say, China - well, let's just say I've got some theories about Elvis and alien abductions that you may be interested in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28556751</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246544940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck carbon credits and fuck every one of you dreadlocked hippies that support them.  There is a SINGLE coal fire in China that produces more CO2 in a year than every SUV in the United States.  The Chinese STILL rely on coal for heating their residential housing, and that will not change.  By supporting this brainless political shit you are dooming our fucking country.  While the Chinese and Indians burn cheap coal and oil, we'll still be out in our fields putting up fucking windmills and trying to catch enough sun to light an LED or two.  I blame you worthless shits for what this country will be in 20 years; a bankrupt, marginalized fourth-world country in an economic straitjacket of its own design...with lots of corroding nuclear fucking bombs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck carbon credits and fuck every one of you dreadlocked hippies that support them .
There is a SINGLE coal fire in China that produces more CO2 in a year than every SUV in the United States .
The Chinese STILL rely on coal for heating their residential housing , and that will not change .
By supporting this brainless political shit you are dooming our fucking country .
While the Chinese and Indians burn cheap coal and oil , we 'll still be out in our fields putting up fucking windmills and trying to catch enough sun to light an LED or two .
I blame you worthless shits for what this country will be in 20 years ; a bankrupt , marginalized fourth-world country in an economic straitjacket of its own design...with lots of corroding nuclear fucking bombs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck carbon credits and fuck every one of you dreadlocked hippies that support them.
There is a SINGLE coal fire in China that produces more CO2 in a year than every SUV in the United States.
The Chinese STILL rely on coal for heating their residential housing, and that will not change.
By supporting this brainless political shit you are dooming our fucking country.
While the Chinese and Indians burn cheap coal and oil, we'll still be out in our fields putting up fucking windmills and trying to catch enough sun to light an LED or two.
I blame you worthless shits for what this country will be in 20 years; a bankrupt, marginalized fourth-world country in an economic straitjacket of its own design...with lots of corroding nuclear fucking bombs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915</id>
	<title>Wind/Solar Only?</title>
	<author>Hubbell</author>
	<datestamp>1246440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is the bill worded to demand that only solar/wind be advanced as renewable when for all intents and purposes Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactors are cheaper (these renewable sources are much more expensive barring an insanely good breakthrough/require MUCH LARGER areas to be anywhere near current power plant outputs) and also renewable in the fact that they burn their waste, then burn their wastes waste, etc, all the way down to burning 90+\% of their waste with the remaining byproduct only being slightly hot for 5-10 years?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the bill worded to demand that only solar/wind be advanced as renewable when for all intents and purposes Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactors are cheaper ( these renewable sources are much more expensive barring an insanely good breakthrough/require MUCH LARGER areas to be anywhere near current power plant outputs ) and also renewable in the fact that they burn their waste , then burn their wastes waste , etc , all the way down to burning 90 + \ % of their waste with the remaining byproduct only being slightly hot for 5-10 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the bill worded to demand that only solar/wind be advanced as renewable when for all intents and purposes Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactors are cheaper (these renewable sources are much more expensive barring an insanely good breakthrough/require MUCH LARGER areas to be anywhere near current power plant outputs) and also renewable in the fact that they burn their waste, then burn their wastes waste, etc, all the way down to burning 90+\% of their waste with the remaining byproduct only being slightly hot for 5-10 years?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551041</id>
	<title>Martin Luther talked about these</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1246448100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pollution credits are just modern <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence" title="wikipedia.org">Indulgences</a> [wikipedia.org]. The last time a market for those was floated, it divided Christendom in twain (or into thirds, if you regard protestant, catholic and eastern orthodoxy as same-level peers) and rocked European political structure to its core.</p><p>Whether to regard that as a good thing or a bad thing is left as an exercise (or perhaps, exorcise) for the reader.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pollution credits are just modern Indulgences [ wikipedia.org ] .
The last time a market for those was floated , it divided Christendom in twain ( or into thirds , if you regard protestant , catholic and eastern orthodoxy as same-level peers ) and rocked European political structure to its core.Whether to regard that as a good thing or a bad thing is left as an exercise ( or perhaps , exorcise ) for the reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pollution credits are just modern Indulgences [wikipedia.org].
The last time a market for those was floated, it divided Christendom in twain (or into thirds, if you regard protestant, catholic and eastern orthodoxy as same-level peers) and rocked European political structure to its core.Whether to regard that as a good thing or a bad thing is left as an exercise (or perhaps, exorcise) for the reader.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552405</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246455720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The cap and trade bill that just passed the house will simply drive all of the industry further to China and the third world where there are scant environmental regulations.</p></div><p>Actually, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2454:" title="loc.gov" rel="nofollow">the bill</a> [loc.gov] calls for a system of what are effectively import tariffs on goods coming from countries that have less stringent greenhouse gas controls than the U.S:</p><blockquote><div><p>`SEC. 768. INTERNATIONAL RESERVE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(a) Establishment-</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(1) IN GENERAL- The Administrator, with the concurrence of Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall issue regulations--</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(A) establishing an international reserve allowance program for the sale, exchange, purchase, transfer, and banking of international reserve allowances for covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(B) ensuring that the price for purchasing the international reserve allowances from the United States on a particular day is equivalent to the auction clearing price for emission allowances under section 722 for the most recent emission allowance auction;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(C) establishing a general methodology for calculating the quantity of international reserve allowances that a United States importer of any covered good must submit;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(D) requiring the submission of appropriate amounts of such allowances for covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector that enter the customs territory of the United States;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(E) exempting from the requirements of subparagraph (D) such products that are the origin of--</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(i) any country determined to meet any of the standards provided in section 767(c);</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(ii) any foreign country that the United Nations has identified as among the least developed of developing countries; or</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(iii) any foreign country that the President has determined to be responsible for less than 0.5 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions and less than 5 percent of United States imports of covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(F) specifying the procedures that U.S. Customs and Border Protection will apply for the declaration and entry of covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector into the customs territory of the United States; and</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(G) establishing procedures that prevent circumvention of the international reserve allowance requirement for covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector that are manufactured or processed in more than one foreign country.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(2) PURPOSE OF PROGRAM- The Administrator shall establish the program under paragraph (1) consistent with international agreements to which the United States is a party, in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of carbon leakage as a result of differences between--</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(A) the direct and indirect costs of complying with section 722; and</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(B) the direct and indirect costs, if any, of complying in other countries with greenhouse gas regulatory programs, requirements, export tariffs, or other measures adopted or imposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(b) Emission Allowance Rebates- In establishing a general methodology for purposes of subsection (a)(1)(C), the Administrator shall include an adjustment to the quantity of international reserve allowances based on the value of emission allowance rebates distributed under subpart 1 and the benefit received by the eligible industrial sector concerned from the provision of free allowances to electricity providers pursuant to section 782(a) and may, if appropriate, determine that the quantity of international reserve allowances should be reduced as low as to zero.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(c) Effective Date- The international reserve allowance program may not apply to imports of covered goods entering the customs territory of the United States before January 1, 2020.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; `(d) Covered Entities- International reserve allowances may not be used by covered entities to comply with section 722.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cap and trade bill that just passed the house will simply drive all of the industry further to China and the third world where there are scant environmental regulations.Actually , the bill [ loc.gov ] calls for a system of what are effectively import tariffs on goods coming from countries that have less stringent greenhouse gas controls than the U.S : ` SEC .
768. INTERNATIONAL RESERVE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM .
            ` ( a ) Establishment-                         ` ( 1 ) IN GENERAL- The Administrator , with the concurrence of Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and Border Protection , shall issue regulations--                                     ` ( A ) establishing an international reserve allowance program for the sale , exchange , purchase , transfer , and banking of international reserve allowances for covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector ;                                     ` ( B ) ensuring that the price for purchasing the international reserve allowances from the United States on a particular day is equivalent to the auction clearing price for emission allowances under section 722 for the most recent emission allowance auction ;                                     ` ( C ) establishing a general methodology for calculating the quantity of international reserve allowances that a United States importer of any covered good must submit ;                                     ` ( D ) requiring the submission of appropriate amounts of such allowances for covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector that enter the customs territory of the United States ;                                     ` ( E ) exempting from the requirements of subparagraph ( D ) such products that are the origin of--                                                 ` ( i ) any country determined to meet any of the standards provided in section 767 ( c ) ;                                                 ` ( ii ) any foreign country that the United Nations has identified as among the least developed of developing countries ; or                                                 ` ( iii ) any foreign country that the President has determined to be responsible for less than 0.5 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions and less than 5 percent of United States imports of covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector ;                                     ` ( F ) specifying the procedures that U.S. Customs and Border Protection will apply for the declaration and entry of covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector into the customs territory of the United States ; and                                     ` ( G ) establishing procedures that prevent circumvention of the international reserve allowance requirement for covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector that are manufactured or processed in more than one foreign country .
                        ` ( 2 ) PURPOSE OF PROGRAM- The Administrator shall establish the program under paragraph ( 1 ) consistent with international agreements to which the United States is a party , in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of carbon leakage as a result of differences between--                                     ` ( A ) the direct and indirect costs of complying with section 722 ; and                                     ` ( B ) the direct and indirect costs , if any , of complying in other countries with greenhouse gas regulatory programs , requirements , export tariffs , or other measures adopted or imposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions .
            ` ( b ) Emission Allowance Rebates- In establishing a general methodology for purposes of subsection ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ) , the Administrator shall include an adjustment to the quantity of international reserve allowances based on the value of emission allowance rebates distributed under subpart 1 and the benefit received by the eligible industrial sector concerned from the provision of free allowances to electricity providers pursuant to section 782 ( a ) and may , if appropriate , determine that the quantity of international reserve allowances should be reduced as low as to zero .
            ` ( c ) Effective Date- The international reserve allowance program may not apply to imports of covered goods entering the customs territory of the United States before January 1 , 2020 .
            ` ( d ) Covered Entities- International reserve allowances may not be used by covered entities to comply with section 722 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cap and trade bill that just passed the house will simply drive all of the industry further to China and the third world where there are scant environmental regulations.Actually, the bill [loc.gov] calls for a system of what are effectively import tariffs on goods coming from countries that have less stringent greenhouse gas controls than the U.S:`SEC.
768. INTERNATIONAL RESERVE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM.
            `(a) Establishment-
                        `(1) IN GENERAL- The Administrator, with the concurrence of Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall issue regulations--
                                    `(A) establishing an international reserve allowance program for the sale, exchange, purchase, transfer, and banking of international reserve allowances for covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector;
                                    `(B) ensuring that the price for purchasing the international reserve allowances from the United States on a particular day is equivalent to the auction clearing price for emission allowances under section 722 for the most recent emission allowance auction;
                                    `(C) establishing a general methodology for calculating the quantity of international reserve allowances that a United States importer of any covered good must submit;
                                    `(D) requiring the submission of appropriate amounts of such allowances for covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector that enter the customs territory of the United States;
                                    `(E) exempting from the requirements of subparagraph (D) such products that are the origin of--
                                                `(i) any country determined to meet any of the standards provided in section 767(c);
                                                `(ii) any foreign country that the United Nations has identified as among the least developed of developing countries; or
                                                `(iii) any foreign country that the President has determined to be responsible for less than 0.5 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions and less than 5 percent of United States imports of covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector;
                                    `(F) specifying the procedures that U.S. Customs and Border Protection will apply for the declaration and entry of covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector into the customs territory of the United States; and
                                    `(G) establishing procedures that prevent circumvention of the international reserve allowance requirement for covered goods with respect to the eligible industrial sector that are manufactured or processed in more than one foreign country.
                        `(2) PURPOSE OF PROGRAM- The Administrator shall establish the program under paragraph (1) consistent with international agreements to which the United States is a party, in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of carbon leakage as a result of differences between--
                                    `(A) the direct and indirect costs of complying with section 722; and
                                    `(B) the direct and indirect costs, if any, of complying in other countries with greenhouse gas regulatory programs, requirements, export tariffs, or other measures adopted or imposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
            `(b) Emission Allowance Rebates- In establishing a general methodology for purposes of subsection (a)(1)(C), the Administrator shall include an adjustment to the quantity of international reserve allowances based on the value of emission allowance rebates distributed under subpart 1 and the benefit received by the eligible industrial sector concerned from the provision of free allowances to electricity providers pursuant to section 782(a) and may, if appropriate, determine that the quantity of international reserve allowances should be reduced as low as to zero.
            `(c) Effective Date- The international reserve allowance program may not apply to imports of covered goods entering the customs territory of the United States before January 1, 2020.
            `(d) Covered Entities- International reserve allowances may not be used by covered entities to comply with section 722.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550269</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>Tangent128</author>
	<datestamp>1246444860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, a carbon FairTax?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , a carbon FairTax ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, a carbon FairTax?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550473</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1246445640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can someone please explain why we're talking about charging companies more to do their work when we're already dealing with 10\% unemployment and signs that it will still take a while to fully recover?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, I can explain.<br> <br>As time passes, both the negative impacts of GCC and the cost to reduce our contribution to GCC will go up.  We can suffer now, or suffer more later.<br> <br>And the excuse not to act now because of the economic downturn will get drawn out and exaggerated.  And when that excuse is played out, there will be another excuse to delay action.  Procrastination is not a good idea.<br> <br>And as for the wording of your question, it's loaded.  Why don't we rephrase it to load it the other direction:</p><blockquote><div><p>Can someone please explain why we're talking about allowing companies to negatively impact people when people are already suffering through 10\% unemployment and there are signs that it will take a while for employment to recover?</p></div></blockquote><p>We all need to tighten our belts, and delaying action could prove to be prohibitively expensive.  Yes, the timing could be better (for example, during the boom of the 90s), but the will to act was not present, and the elected "leadership" was too happy playing kiss-me smack-me with corporate interests.  Right now may be the last time we have leadership willing to take action for some time... so we act now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please explain why we 're talking about charging companies more to do their work when we 're already dealing with 10 \ % unemployment and signs that it will still take a while to fully recover ? Yes , I can explain .
As time passes , both the negative impacts of GCC and the cost to reduce our contribution to GCC will go up .
We can suffer now , or suffer more later .
And the excuse not to act now because of the economic downturn will get drawn out and exaggerated .
And when that excuse is played out , there will be another excuse to delay action .
Procrastination is not a good idea .
And as for the wording of your question , it 's loaded .
Why do n't we rephrase it to load it the other direction : Can someone please explain why we 're talking about allowing companies to negatively impact people when people are already suffering through 10 \ % unemployment and there are signs that it will take a while for employment to recover ? We all need to tighten our belts , and delaying action could prove to be prohibitively expensive .
Yes , the timing could be better ( for example , during the boom of the 90s ) , but the will to act was not present , and the elected " leadership " was too happy playing kiss-me smack-me with corporate interests .
Right now may be the last time we have leadership willing to take action for some time... so we act now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please explain why we're talking about charging companies more to do their work when we're already dealing with 10\% unemployment and signs that it will still take a while to fully recover?Yes, I can explain.
As time passes, both the negative impacts of GCC and the cost to reduce our contribution to GCC will go up.
We can suffer now, or suffer more later.
And the excuse not to act now because of the economic downturn will get drawn out and exaggerated.
And when that excuse is played out, there will be another excuse to delay action.
Procrastination is not a good idea.
And as for the wording of your question, it's loaded.
Why don't we rephrase it to load it the other direction:Can someone please explain why we're talking about allowing companies to negatively impact people when people are already suffering through 10\% unemployment and there are signs that it will take a while for employment to recover?We all need to tighten our belts, and delaying action could prove to be prohibitively expensive.
Yes, the timing could be better (for example, during the boom of the 90s), but the will to act was not present, and the elected "leadership" was too happy playing kiss-me smack-me with corporate interests.
Right now may be the last time we have leadership willing to take action for some time... so we act now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550313</id>
	<title>Re:Only dealing with symptoms, not the problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; That problem is overpopulation. massive overpopulation.</p><p>Nope, you are looking at a symptom not the cause.  The problem is the uneven distribution of capitalism and liberty.  Go look at the numbers.  There is an unmistakable link between freedom, wealth and birth rate.  The link is even better if you assume a two generation lag on the birth rate vs the other factors.</p><p>The solution is thus simple, bring the blessings of liberty to the huddled masses yearning to breath free.  Help them establish a solid rule of law and watch them become quickly become prosperous.  Yes their population will spike as improved conditions permit a population boom, but that will soon stabilize and begin to decline.  The US is the only thing resembling an exception to this rule and our population would also be in decline without illegal immigration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; That problem is overpopulation .
massive overpopulation.Nope , you are looking at a symptom not the cause .
The problem is the uneven distribution of capitalism and liberty .
Go look at the numbers .
There is an unmistakable link between freedom , wealth and birth rate .
The link is even better if you assume a two generation lag on the birth rate vs the other factors.The solution is thus simple , bring the blessings of liberty to the huddled masses yearning to breath free .
Help them establish a solid rule of law and watch them become quickly become prosperous .
Yes their population will spike as improved conditions permit a population boom , but that will soon stabilize and begin to decline .
The US is the only thing resembling an exception to this rule and our population would also be in decline without illegal immigration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; That problem is overpopulation.
massive overpopulation.Nope, you are looking at a symptom not the cause.
The problem is the uneven distribution of capitalism and liberty.
Go look at the numbers.
There is an unmistakable link between freedom, wealth and birth rate.
The link is even better if you assume a two generation lag on the birth rate vs the other factors.The solution is thus simple, bring the blessings of liberty to the huddled masses yearning to breath free.
Help them establish a solid rule of law and watch them become quickly become prosperous.
Yes their population will spike as improved conditions permit a population boom, but that will soon stabilize and begin to decline.
The US is the only thing resembling an exception to this rule and our population would also be in decline without illegal immigration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548987</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1246440720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So pay a uniform "pre-bate" [1]to everyone equal to the "energy tax" they would pay if their income were x\% of the poverty level.  (Again, that's a uniform prebate to all adults, with no means-testing.)</p><p>Then, the only people whose *net* taxes go up are the ones making above the poverty level and don't reduce energy use.  And the poor's taxes (by whatever definition you use for x) don't change.  And it retains the incentive for everyone, including the poor, to cut back whatever energy consumption they can.</p><p>[1] For those of you with low intelligence or born before 1960, read that as "Mail a check".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So pay a uniform " pre-bate " [ 1 ] to everyone equal to the " energy tax " they would pay if their income were x \ % of the poverty level .
( Again , that 's a uniform prebate to all adults , with no means-testing .
) Then , the only people whose * net * taxes go up are the ones making above the poverty level and do n't reduce energy use .
And the poor 's taxes ( by whatever definition you use for x ) do n't change .
And it retains the incentive for everyone , including the poor , to cut back whatever energy consumption they can .
[ 1 ] For those of you with low intelligence or born before 1960 , read that as " Mail a check " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So pay a uniform "pre-bate" [1]to everyone equal to the "energy tax" they would pay if their income were x\% of the poverty level.
(Again, that's a uniform prebate to all adults, with no means-testing.
)Then, the only people whose *net* taxes go up are the ones making above the poverty level and don't reduce energy use.
And the poor's taxes (by whatever definition you use for x) don't change.
And it retains the incentive for everyone, including the poor, to cut back whatever energy consumption they can.
[1] For those of you with low intelligence or born before 1960, read that as "Mail a check".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549209</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1246441440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>true, although progressive taxation isn't harmless either.  THe money has to come from somewhere whether it be from raising prices, firing workers or reducing investment it will indirecty affect others who don't actually pay the tax directly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>true , although progressive taxation is n't harmless either .
THe money has to come from somewhere whether it be from raising prices , firing workers or reducing investment it will indirecty affect others who do n't actually pay the tax directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>true, although progressive taxation isn't harmless either.
THe money has to come from somewhere whether it be from raising prices, firing workers or reducing investment it will indirecty affect others who don't actually pay the tax directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554413</id>
	<title>Re:Only dealing with symptoms, not the problem.</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1246475700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><i>The US is the only thing resembling an exception to this rule and our population would also be in decline without illegal immigration.</i></p></div>  </blockquote><p>Wrong, wrong, wrong.  The US actually has slight natural growth, which AFAIK is unique among wealthy nations.  With legal immigration we have large population growth, and with illegal immigration even larger.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is the only thing resembling an exception to this rule and our population would also be in decline without illegal immigration .
Wrong , wrong , wrong .
The US actually has slight natural growth , which AFAIK is unique among wealthy nations .
With legal immigration we have large population growth , and with illegal immigration even larger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is the only thing resembling an exception to this rule and our population would also be in decline without illegal immigration.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The US actually has slight natural growth, which AFAIK is unique among wealthy nations.
With legal immigration we have large population growth, and with illegal immigration even larger.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549423</id>
	<title>Re:And one lesson you can learn *before* failing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246441980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've ever taken a look at the estimates for fossil fuel reserves and economic growth of said countries, the falling production combined with increased demand for fuel may solve the problem anyway.  From the estimates I've seen, we're at least 80\% of peak production and we're due to hit the max in a decade or so.  Production falls off in a bel-curve fashion forcing the utilization of alternatives or economic decline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've ever taken a look at the estimates for fossil fuel reserves and economic growth of said countries , the falling production combined with increased demand for fuel may solve the problem anyway .
From the estimates I 've seen , we 're at least 80 \ % of peak production and we 're due to hit the max in a decade or so .
Production falls off in a bel-curve fashion forcing the utilization of alternatives or economic decline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've ever taken a look at the estimates for fossil fuel reserves and economic growth of said countries, the falling production combined with increased demand for fuel may solve the problem anyway.
From the estimates I've seen, we're at least 80\% of peak production and we're due to hit the max in a decade or so.
Production falls off in a bel-curve fashion forcing the utilization of alternatives or economic decline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549323</id>
	<title>Keep it straight and make it a tax</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1246441680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why complicate the process? It is a tax, call it one and make it one in a straightforward sense. Tax coal at some rate, imported petroleum at some other rate and exempt wind and solar energies. Simple. right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why complicate the process ?
It is a tax , call it one and make it one in a straightforward sense .
Tax coal at some rate , imported petroleum at some other rate and exempt wind and solar energies .
Simple. right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why complicate the process?
It is a tax, call it one and make it one in a straightforward sense.
Tax coal at some rate, imported petroleum at some other rate and exempt wind and solar energies.
Simple. right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549237</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>georgenh16</author>
	<datestamp>1246441500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>9.x\% - they don't care if it's over 15\%!<p><div class="quote"><p>Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10\% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15\%. Democrats defeated all of them.</p></div><p> -Wall Street Journal</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>9.x \ % - they do n't care if it 's over 15 \ % ! Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation wo n't pinch wallets , behind the scenes they 've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming .
During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee , Republicans offered three amendments : one to suspend the program if gas hit $ 5 a gallon ; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10 \ % over 2009 ; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15 \ % .
Democrats defeated all of them .
-Wall Street Journal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>9.x\% - they don't care if it's over 15\%!Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming.
During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10\% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15\%.
Democrats defeated all of them.
-Wall Street Journal
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550981</id>
	<title>Re:Success depends on the goal</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1246447800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The green movement is basically a watermelon, enviro green on the outside and red communist inside.</i></p><p>And don't forget the Seeds Of Homosexuality inside!</p><p>Remember kids, Jesus hates commies, and he hates gays, and he hates the environment, ummmm and he hates watermelons. Jesus especially hates the Gay Seeds of Homosexuality in watermelons.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The green movement is basically a watermelon , enviro green on the outside and red communist inside.And do n't forget the Seeds Of Homosexuality inside ! Remember kids , Jesus hates commies , and he hates gays , and he hates the environment , ummmm and he hates watermelons .
Jesus especially hates the Gay Seeds of Homosexuality in watermelons.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The green movement is basically a watermelon, enviro green on the outside and red communist inside.And don't forget the Seeds Of Homosexuality inside!Remember kids, Jesus hates commies, and he hates gays, and he hates the environment, ummmm and he hates watermelons.
Jesus especially hates the Gay Seeds of Homosexuality in watermelons.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554795</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>laddiebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1246566540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole point of this thread is the concern that this tax would hurt the poor more than the rich. So it's just taking money from you (the rich) and giving it to the family of four down the street (the poor). So if you are concerned that it's an unfair tax, then of course money has to be taken from you and given to the poor! Be logical about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point of this thread is the concern that this tax would hurt the poor more than the rich .
So it 's just taking money from you ( the rich ) and giving it to the family of four down the street ( the poor ) .
So if you are concerned that it 's an unfair tax , then of course money has to be taken from you and given to the poor !
Be logical about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point of this thread is the concern that this tax would hurt the poor more than the rich.
So it's just taking money from you (the rich) and giving it to the family of four down the street (the poor).
So if you are concerned that it's an unfair tax, then of course money has to be taken from you and given to the poor!
Be logical about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552339</id>
	<title>Re:Cap and Trade Issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246455300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is really only one difference between a proper cap-and-trade system and a tax.  In one case we pick the "right" cap and the market will determine the correct price.  In the other case we pick the "right" price and the market will determine how much is produced.  I really don't know which we can better determine, although I would observe that capping at current levels or higher is probably the least likely to do significant harm.</p><p>Of course, no comment on whether EU system or the Democrats' bill is a "proper" cap-and-trade system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is really only one difference between a proper cap-and-trade system and a tax .
In one case we pick the " right " cap and the market will determine the correct price .
In the other case we pick the " right " price and the market will determine how much is produced .
I really do n't know which we can better determine , although I would observe that capping at current levels or higher is probably the least likely to do significant harm.Of course , no comment on whether EU system or the Democrats ' bill is a " proper " cap-and-trade system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is really only one difference between a proper cap-and-trade system and a tax.
In one case we pick the "right" cap and the market will determine the correct price.
In the other case we pick the "right" price and the market will determine how much is produced.
I really don't know which we can better determine, although I would observe that capping at current levels or higher is probably the least likely to do significant harm.Of course, no comment on whether EU system or the Democrats' bill is a "proper" cap-and-trade system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549737</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>McBeer</author>
	<datestamp>1246442940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An article by Robert Zubrin [rollcall.com] pegs this cost as $1800 for a family of four.</p></div><p>The articles argument is flawed.  As I read it, the argument went thusly:<br>
<br>
1) By 2015 the carbon price will be about $15/ton <br>
2) United States currently emits about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year<br>
3) The United states carbon output will not change as a result of this legislation<br>
4) 2+3 -&gt; In 2015, United States  will emit about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year.<br>
5) There will be about 300 million Americans in 2015 <br>
6) Any tax on carbon gets passed on directly to consumers who enjoy no financial benefit in return.<br>
7) 4+5+6-&gt; A group of 4 Americans will have an increased liability of $1800 annually as a result of this legislation<br>
<br>
Several of these premises are false.<br>
<br>
1- accepted<br>
2- accepted<br>
3 - Probably false though debatable<br>
4- true/false depending on (3)<br>
5 - accepted<br>
6 - False.  The taxed money isn't simply thrown in a hole and burned.  The government will use that money and thereby reduce the need for other taxes or, more probably, use it to offset the rampant deficit spending already taking place.  When the government does things (build roads, starts wars, provides social services, etc) that costs tax payers money.  Unless a government is building a large surplus for no reason, taxes do not cost people money.  Tax systems just determine who has to pay what portion of the money already spent with the aforementioned projects (build roads, starts wars, provides social services, etc).  In this case, everybody will pay some, but those whose actions negatively affect society pay an additional price for it and are thereby incentivized to lessen the harmful behavior.  This sort of tax pays for the things we bought and encourages sustainable business practices to boot.  A real win-win. <br>
<br>
If you want to complain about something, complain whenever the government tries to spend money, not when it tries to collect it.  Approving every proposed government project and then screaming bloody murder over every government tax is how got to have the budget problems we now have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An article by Robert Zubrin [ rollcall.com ] pegs this cost as $ 1800 for a family of four.The articles argument is flawed .
As I read it , the argument went thusly : 1 ) By 2015 the carbon price will be about $ 15/ton 2 ) United States currently emits about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year 3 ) The United states carbon output will not change as a result of this legislation 4 ) 2 + 3 - &gt; In 2015 , United States will emit about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year .
5 ) There will be about 300 million Americans in 2015 6 ) Any tax on carbon gets passed on directly to consumers who enjoy no financial benefit in return .
7 ) 4 + 5 + 6- &gt; A group of 4 Americans will have an increased liability of $ 1800 annually as a result of this legislation Several of these premises are false .
1- accepted 2- accepted 3 - Probably false though debatable 4- true/false depending on ( 3 ) 5 - accepted 6 - False .
The taxed money is n't simply thrown in a hole and burned .
The government will use that money and thereby reduce the need for other taxes or , more probably , use it to offset the rampant deficit spending already taking place .
When the government does things ( build roads , starts wars , provides social services , etc ) that costs tax payers money .
Unless a government is building a large surplus for no reason , taxes do not cost people money .
Tax systems just determine who has to pay what portion of the money already spent with the aforementioned projects ( build roads , starts wars , provides social services , etc ) .
In this case , everybody will pay some , but those whose actions negatively affect society pay an additional price for it and are thereby incentivized to lessen the harmful behavior .
This sort of tax pays for the things we bought and encourages sustainable business practices to boot .
A real win-win .
If you want to complain about something , complain whenever the government tries to spend money , not when it tries to collect it .
Approving every proposed government project and then screaming bloody murder over every government tax is how got to have the budget problems we now have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An article by Robert Zubrin [rollcall.com] pegs this cost as $1800 for a family of four.The articles argument is flawed.
As I read it, the argument went thusly:

1) By 2015 the carbon price will be about $15/ton 
2) United States currently emits about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year
3) The United states carbon output will not change as a result of this legislation
4) 2+3 -&gt; In 2015, United States  will emit about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year.
5) There will be about 300 million Americans in 2015 
6) Any tax on carbon gets passed on directly to consumers who enjoy no financial benefit in return.
7) 4+5+6-&gt; A group of 4 Americans will have an increased liability of $1800 annually as a result of this legislation

Several of these premises are false.
1- accepted
2- accepted
3 - Probably false though debatable
4- true/false depending on (3)
5 - accepted
6 - False.
The taxed money isn't simply thrown in a hole and burned.
The government will use that money and thereby reduce the need for other taxes or, more probably, use it to offset the rampant deficit spending already taking place.
When the government does things (build roads, starts wars, provides social services, etc) that costs tax payers money.
Unless a government is building a large surplus for no reason, taxes do not cost people money.
Tax systems just determine who has to pay what portion of the money already spent with the aforementioned projects (build roads, starts wars, provides social services, etc).
In this case, everybody will pay some, but those whose actions negatively affect society pay an additional price for it and are thereby incentivized to lessen the harmful behavior.
This sort of tax pays for the things we bought and encourages sustainable business practices to boot.
A real win-win.
If you want to complain about something, complain whenever the government tries to spend money, not when it tries to collect it.
Approving every proposed government project and then screaming bloody murder over every government tax is how got to have the budget problems we now have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550921</id>
	<title>Pollution</title>
	<author>slowgreenturtle</author>
	<datestamp>1246447500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there's so much pollution and it's killing us all, why are we living so much longer now then we were at the beginning of the 20th century? How about if you just leave me alone to make my own choices and stop 'taxing' me for living? Don't I have a right to my own life, to be decided as I see fit? The argument over how make to taxing people and companies 'simpler' seems like a smoke screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there 's so much pollution and it 's killing us all , why are we living so much longer now then we were at the beginning of the 20th century ?
How about if you just leave me alone to make my own choices and stop 'taxing ' me for living ?
Do n't I have a right to my own life , to be decided as I see fit ?
The argument over how make to taxing people and companies 'simpler ' seems like a smoke screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there's so much pollution and it's killing us all, why are we living so much longer now then we were at the beginning of the 20th century?
How about if you just leave me alone to make my own choices and stop 'taxing' me for living?
Don't I have a right to my own life, to be decided as I see fit?
The argument over how make to taxing people and companies 'simpler' seems like a smoke screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548937</id>
	<title>Embarrassing for the time we live in....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant.</p><p>2. Global Warming has been exposed as false (Hence<br>the name alteration to "Climate Change" in the media.  And if it was at all about the greenhouse gasses, CO2 is 5\% of which we contribute less than 1\% of.  Good grief!</p><p>3. What's next?  Are we going to try to fight Autumn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant.2 .
Global Warming has been exposed as false ( Hencethe name alteration to " Climate Change " in the media .
And if it was at all about the greenhouse gasses , CO2 is 5 \ % of which we contribute less than 1 \ % of .
Good grief ! 3 .
What 's next ?
Are we going to try to fight Autumn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant.2.
Global Warming has been exposed as false (Hencethe name alteration to "Climate Change" in the media.
And if it was at all about the greenhouse gasses, CO2 is 5\% of which we contribute less than 1\% of.
Good grief!3.
What's next?
Are we going to try to fight Autumn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550579</id>
	<title>What the Article Ignores....</title>
	<author>sampson7</author>
	<datestamp>1246446120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article is worthless.  It ignores several critical facts:  (1) the European cap-and-trade will reduce emissions over the next few years;  (2) the over-allocation of initial credits is being addressed;  and (3) a comparable cap-and-trade system effectively eliminated the acid rain problems in the United States due to SOx emissions in the 1990s.<br> <br>In fact, I think the European experience has been enormously beneficial.  <br> <br> <i>First</i>, it has demonstrated that a carbon trading market can exist without bankrupting power producers or other emitters of carbon.  The very fact that prices have remained manageable is critical to the fact that the <a href="http://www.us-cap.org/" title="us-cap.org">power generation industry</a> [us-cap.org] in the United States has largely supported the recent cap-and-trade legislation.  (Full dislosure: I coincidently work for a company that happens to be part of USCAP, though I only work on climate change tangentially.  The thoughts here are my own.)<br> <br> <i>Second</i>, the EU's grand experiment has created a new industry of carbon brokers who go around the world identifying <i>and pricing</i> potential carbon offsets.  The fact that we now have some transparency and price discovery surrounding carbon offsets is a huge benefit.  It also has lead to the preliminary steps for creating fungible and verifiable carbon contracts.  For example, in a market-based system, a one ton reduction in carbon emissions in China should be able to fetch the same price in Europe or the United States.  However, we need set metrics to verify the reduction and to avoid double counting.  The European experience has given us lots of experience in what we need to do.  <br> <br> <i>Third</i>, the European experience demonstrated the critical need to accurately quantify the carbon emitted by industry.  It is no coincidence that one of the Obama administration's first actions when coming into office was to order industry to begin reporting their carbon emissions.  <br> <br> <i>Finally</i>, we cannot miss the point that Europe is reducing its emissions.  Cap-and-trade programs are designed to ratchet down emissions over time.  Every year, another 2 percent of the credits just disappear.  So the over-allocation may have decreased the speed at which the carbon reduction occurs, but less carbon is being emitted today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is worthless .
It ignores several critical facts : ( 1 ) the European cap-and-trade will reduce emissions over the next few years ; ( 2 ) the over-allocation of initial credits is being addressed ; and ( 3 ) a comparable cap-and-trade system effectively eliminated the acid rain problems in the United States due to SOx emissions in the 1990s .
In fact , I think the European experience has been enormously beneficial .
First , it has demonstrated that a carbon trading market can exist without bankrupting power producers or other emitters of carbon .
The very fact that prices have remained manageable is critical to the fact that the power generation industry [ us-cap.org ] in the United States has largely supported the recent cap-and-trade legislation .
( Full dislosure : I coincidently work for a company that happens to be part of USCAP , though I only work on climate change tangentially .
The thoughts here are my own .
) Second , the EU 's grand experiment has created a new industry of carbon brokers who go around the world identifying and pricing potential carbon offsets .
The fact that we now have some transparency and price discovery surrounding carbon offsets is a huge benefit .
It also has lead to the preliminary steps for creating fungible and verifiable carbon contracts .
For example , in a market-based system , a one ton reduction in carbon emissions in China should be able to fetch the same price in Europe or the United States .
However , we need set metrics to verify the reduction and to avoid double counting .
The European experience has given us lots of experience in what we need to do .
Third , the European experience demonstrated the critical need to accurately quantify the carbon emitted by industry .
It is no coincidence that one of the Obama administration 's first actions when coming into office was to order industry to begin reporting their carbon emissions .
Finally , we can not miss the point that Europe is reducing its emissions .
Cap-and-trade programs are designed to ratchet down emissions over time .
Every year , another 2 percent of the credits just disappear .
So the over-allocation may have decreased the speed at which the carbon reduction occurs , but less carbon is being emitted today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is worthless.
It ignores several critical facts:  (1) the European cap-and-trade will reduce emissions over the next few years;  (2) the over-allocation of initial credits is being addressed;  and (3) a comparable cap-and-trade system effectively eliminated the acid rain problems in the United States due to SOx emissions in the 1990s.
In fact, I think the European experience has been enormously beneficial.
First, it has demonstrated that a carbon trading market can exist without bankrupting power producers or other emitters of carbon.
The very fact that prices have remained manageable is critical to the fact that the power generation industry [us-cap.org] in the United States has largely supported the recent cap-and-trade legislation.
(Full dislosure: I coincidently work for a company that happens to be part of USCAP, though I only work on climate change tangentially.
The thoughts here are my own.
)  Second, the EU's grand experiment has created a new industry of carbon brokers who go around the world identifying and pricing potential carbon offsets.
The fact that we now have some transparency and price discovery surrounding carbon offsets is a huge benefit.
It also has lead to the preliminary steps for creating fungible and verifiable carbon contracts.
For example, in a market-based system, a one ton reduction in carbon emissions in China should be able to fetch the same price in Europe or the United States.
However, we need set metrics to verify the reduction and to avoid double counting.
The European experience has given us lots of experience in what we need to do.
Third, the European experience demonstrated the critical need to accurately quantify the carbon emitted by industry.
It is no coincidence that one of the Obama administration's first actions when coming into office was to order industry to begin reporting their carbon emissions.
Finally, we cannot miss the point that Europe is reducing its emissions.
Cap-and-trade programs are designed to ratchet down emissions over time.
Every year, another 2 percent of the credits just disappear.
So the over-allocation may have decreased the speed at which the carbon reduction occurs, but less carbon is being emitted today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549445</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1246442040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're setting up a false dichotomy.  Implemented correctly, a carbon tax could fairly easily reduce the unemployment rate through the creation of "green jobs".</p><p>In the short-term, at least.  In the long term, we're all unemployed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're setting up a false dichotomy .
Implemented correctly , a carbon tax could fairly easily reduce the unemployment rate through the creation of " green jobs " .In the short-term , at least .
In the long term , we 're all unemployed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're setting up a false dichotomy.
Implemented correctly, a carbon tax could fairly easily reduce the unemployment rate through the creation of "green jobs".In the short-term, at least.
In the long term, we're all unemployed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550277</id>
	<title>Re:Cap and Trade Issues</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1246444860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard? What about campfires?</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't parts of California already prohibit the use of fireplaces?</p><p>Given how much of this crap comes out of that state I feel like we've got a bunch of people who've decided to live in a hot, arid environment and are now complaining about the weather and trying to force the rest of us into doing something about it. It would be like Alaskans mandating that every American be supplied a parka or something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard ?
What about campfires ? Do n't parts of California already prohibit the use of fireplaces ? Given how much of this crap comes out of that state I feel like we 've got a bunch of people who 've decided to live in a hot , arid environment and are now complaining about the weather and trying to force the rest of us into doing something about it .
It would be like Alaskans mandating that every American be supplied a parka or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard?
What about campfires?Don't parts of California already prohibit the use of fireplaces?Given how much of this crap comes out of that state I feel like we've got a bunch of people who've decided to live in a hot, arid environment and are now complaining about the weather and trying to force the rest of us into doing something about it.
It would be like Alaskans mandating that every American be supplied a parka or something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550691</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>Hubbell</author>
	<datestamp>1246446480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You really are naive.

<br> <br> <br>

If the government GETS more money, they will SPEND more money.
<br>
<br>
And this is a hidden version of taxing the population as all costs will be passed on to the consumer.  Good game for Obama's "I will not raise taxes on 95\% of americans" speech with this bill and the health care bill which will tax employee benefits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You really are naive .
If the government GETS more money , they will SPEND more money .
And this is a hidden version of taxing the population as all costs will be passed on to the consumer .
Good game for Obama 's " I will not raise taxes on 95 \ % of americans " speech with this bill and the health care bill which will tax employee benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really are naive.
If the government GETS more money, they will SPEND more money.
And this is a hidden version of taxing the population as all costs will be passed on to the consumer.
Good game for Obama's "I will not raise taxes on 95\% of americans" speech with this bill and the health care bill which will tax employee benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549313</id>
	<title>The Great American Bubble Machine</title>
	<author>chicago\_scott</author>
	<datestamp>1246441680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Matt Taibbi, in his article The Great American Bubble Machine, asserts that the next bubble will be the carbon trading scheme. Perhaps that's how the Government and Wall Street plan on keeping carbon credits artificially high. That is until the bubble bursts and they raid our tax dollar barrel... again.</p><p><a href="http://www.correntewire.com/great\_american\_bubble\_machine\_0" title="correntewire.com">http://www.correntewire.com/great\_american\_bubble\_machine\_0</a> [correntewire.com]</p><p>FTA:<br>The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.</p><p>Here's how it works: If the bill passes; there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billions worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.</p><p>The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand-new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of an electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.</p><p>Goldman wants this bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Matt Taibbi , in his article The Great American Bubble Machine , asserts that the next bubble will be the carbon trading scheme .
Perhaps that 's how the Government and Wall Street plan on keeping carbon credits artificially high .
That is until the bubble bursts and they raid our tax dollar barrel... again.http : //www.correntewire.com/great \ _american \ _bubble \ _machine \ _0 [ correntewire.com ] FTA : The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that 's been kind to Goldman , except it has one delicious new wrinkle : If the plan goes forward as expected , the rise in prices will be government-mandated .
Goldman wo n't even have to rig the game .
It will be rigged in advance.Here 's how it works : If the bill passes ; there will be limits for coal plants , utilities , natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions ( a.k.a .
greenhouse gases ) they can produce per year .
If the companies go over their allotment , they will be able to buy " allocations " or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions .
President Obama conservatively estimates that about $ 646 billions worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years ; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the " cap " on carbon will be continually lowered by the government , which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year .
Which means that this is a brand-new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time .
The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually ; for comparison 's sake , the annual combined revenues of an electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $ 320 billion.Goldman wants this bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Matt Taibbi, in his article The Great American Bubble Machine, asserts that the next bubble will be the carbon trading scheme.
Perhaps that's how the Government and Wall Street plan on keeping carbon credits artificially high.
That is until the bubble bursts and they raid our tax dollar barrel... again.http://www.correntewire.com/great\_american\_bubble\_machine\_0 [correntewire.com]FTA:The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated.
Goldman won't even have to rig the game.
It will be rigged in advance.Here's how it works: If the bill passes; there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a.
greenhouse gases) they can produce per year.
If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions.
President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billions worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year.
Which means that this is a brand-new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time.
The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of an electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.Goldman wants this bill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552707</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1246458360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes their energy is being "taxed" in an effort to get them to switch to cleaner sources, I thought that was the whole point? If the price of the credits comes out roughly the same as the EU then you can expect to pay a dollar or so per week, if they put the squeeze on the credits so the price rises to say $200/ton, that's about $10/week for the average joe and certainly enough to make wind/solar a sound investment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes their energy is being " taxed " in an effort to get them to switch to cleaner sources , I thought that was the whole point ?
If the price of the credits comes out roughly the same as the EU then you can expect to pay a dollar or so per week , if they put the squeeze on the credits so the price rises to say $ 200/ton , that 's about $ 10/week for the average joe and certainly enough to make wind/solar a sound investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes their energy is being "taxed" in an effort to get them to switch to cleaner sources, I thought that was the whole point?
If the price of the credits comes out roughly the same as the EU then you can expect to pay a dollar or so per week, if they put the squeeze on the credits so the price rises to say $200/ton, that's about $10/week for the average joe and certainly enough to make wind/solar a sound investment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549131</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1246441200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cap and trade bill that just passed the house will simply drive all of the industry further to China and the third world where there are scant environmental regulations.</p><p>It was really scary watching C-span on Friday where every Democrat talked about how this bill will create jobs and save the planet. That isn't an exaggeration in the least. Then the Republicans would speak and quote from all of the studies showing how it will destroy jobs and our econonmy. Now that the Republicans aren't in power they are allowed to use <i>some</i> sense.</p><p>It was very funny how last Tuesday the bill was at 300 pages then on Friday it became up to 1500 pages and then down to 1200 something pages. It was simply impossible for anyone to have read it, let alone comprehend it.</p><p>From what I've read of the bill it sounds a lot like the system put in Spain which isn't doing wonders for their economy and also sounds like Agenda 21 of the UN.</p><p>Essentially we are screwed. It doesn't matter who you vote for or what ideology you are, unless you're in the big club your face is being stomped on right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cap and trade bill that just passed the house will simply drive all of the industry further to China and the third world where there are scant environmental regulations.It was really scary watching C-span on Friday where every Democrat talked about how this bill will create jobs and save the planet .
That is n't an exaggeration in the least .
Then the Republicans would speak and quote from all of the studies showing how it will destroy jobs and our econonmy .
Now that the Republicans are n't in power they are allowed to use some sense.It was very funny how last Tuesday the bill was at 300 pages then on Friday it became up to 1500 pages and then down to 1200 something pages .
It was simply impossible for anyone to have read it , let alone comprehend it.From what I 've read of the bill it sounds a lot like the system put in Spain which is n't doing wonders for their economy and also sounds like Agenda 21 of the UN.Essentially we are screwed .
It does n't matter who you vote for or what ideology you are , unless you 're in the big club your face is being stomped on right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cap and trade bill that just passed the house will simply drive all of the industry further to China and the third world where there are scant environmental regulations.It was really scary watching C-span on Friday where every Democrat talked about how this bill will create jobs and save the planet.
That isn't an exaggeration in the least.
Then the Republicans would speak and quote from all of the studies showing how it will destroy jobs and our econonmy.
Now that the Republicans aren't in power they are allowed to use some sense.It was very funny how last Tuesday the bill was at 300 pages then on Friday it became up to 1500 pages and then down to 1200 something pages.
It was simply impossible for anyone to have read it, let alone comprehend it.From what I've read of the bill it sounds a lot like the system put in Spain which isn't doing wonders for their economy and also sounds like Agenda 21 of the UN.Essentially we are screwed.
It doesn't matter who you vote for or what ideology you are, unless you're in the big club your face is being stomped on right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552127</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246453860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government can't send you a 'check' unless they take the money from you first.</p></div><p>False.</p><p>They can borrow the money from China, mail you a check, and pay back China when they take the money from you second.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government ca n't send you a 'check ' unless they take the money from you first.False.They can borrow the money from China , mail you a check , and pay back China when they take the money from you second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government can't send you a 'check' unless they take the money from you first.False.They can borrow the money from China, mail you a check, and pay back China when they take the money from you second.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550033</id>
	<title>It's part of the "plan"</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1246443960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Establishing a carbon price in the U.S. system now, and tightening the system later could send a dangerously wrong signal to financial markets looking to invest in new energy technologies.</i>
<p>
That's the whole idea. The purpose is the maintenance of the "Business As Usual" model, where energy and resources are commodities restricted to a highly centralised distribution system that is utterly and fantastically wasteful and unsustainable, centred around an economic system that is based on unending growth and continuous expansion - again, another system that is utterly and fantastically wasteful and unsustainable.
</p><p>
We are facing an immanent and catastrophic collapse of net petroleum availability over the next 10 - 15 years.  The present economic downturn is simply allowing us to sustain a production plateau. The collapse of net petroleum is due to several forces, but two big ones are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI" title="wikipedia.org">Energy Return On Energy Invested</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export\_land\_model" title="wikipedia.org">The Export Land Model.</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>
In a nutshell, with EROEI problems, the oil is harder and harder to get at requiring increasing amounts of oil to get at it. Eventually, the amount of energy (in either oil, or "barrels of oil equivalent" amounts of energy - "boe") required to get the oil out of te ground exceeds the amount of energy in the oil itself, at which point, you simply leave the oil in the ground.
</p><p>
The Export Land Model is a different issue, but similarly thorny, where nations that have oil develop their economy around oil and use more and more of it for their own needs, leaving less and less for export. As the oil production eventually decreases, the export of the oil collapses. Eventually the country becomes an oil importer. The poster child of this is Indonesia, but other nations are following a similar pattern.
</p><p>
The people running these systems have quarterly profit reports they need to answer to. Moving not just a particular country, but an entire civilisation away from a particular and extremely powerful energy source (petroleum) is a complex and difficult process that takes a minimum of twenty years to accomplish if one hopes to accomplish it without massive economic, social, and political turbulence and dislocation, according to the Hirsch Report, which says:
</p><p>
<i>Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.</i>
</p><p>
And while the data is still coming in, it appears very likely that we, right now, are at that peak, in the form of a plateau of production that precedes the ineluctable and permanent downturn in petroleum production.
</p><p>
The lifestyle of driving a gas burning car long distances to work at a job that has little social utility or value will, necessarily, come to an end, and society will have to trainsition into a more localised form. The global military machine will have to be dismantled so the resources that support it go into the survival of civilisation itself.
</p><p>
There is great social inertia to maintain the comfy Business As Usual approach, and a great deal of effort is being expended to derail the de-carbonisation of contemporary civilisation. Certain elites are deeply entrenched in the power system that is sustaining this particular configuration of industrialism, and is hell bent for leather to prevent any alternatives to civilisation from evolving (viz. Dick Cheney, the Chinese gov't, Putin, et al) and are dead set against encouraging it, as such would alter the power structure away from them.
</p><p>
This leads to several conclusions. One is <a href="http://www.warsocialism.com/" title="warsocialism.com">War Socialism</a> [warsocialism.com], where the world develops into a set of quasi-socialistic industrial state war machines that compete over the resources. This avenue leads towards great instability and possible nuclear war, resulting in something like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Road" title="wikipedia.org">Cormac McCarthy's "The Road".</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Establishing a carbon price in the U.S. system now , and tightening the system later could send a dangerously wrong signal to financial markets looking to invest in new energy technologies .
That 's the whole idea .
The purpose is the maintenance of the " Business As Usual " model , where energy and resources are commodities restricted to a highly centralised distribution system that is utterly and fantastically wasteful and unsustainable , centred around an economic system that is based on unending growth and continuous expansion - again , another system that is utterly and fantastically wasteful and unsustainable .
We are facing an immanent and catastrophic collapse of net petroleum availability over the next 10 - 15 years .
The present economic downturn is simply allowing us to sustain a production plateau .
The collapse of net petroleum is due to several forces , but two big ones are Energy Return On Energy Invested [ wikipedia.org ] and The Export Land Model .
[ wikipedia.org ] In a nutshell , with EROEI problems , the oil is harder and harder to get at requiring increasing amounts of oil to get at it .
Eventually , the amount of energy ( in either oil , or " barrels of oil equivalent " amounts of energy - " boe " ) required to get the oil out of te ground exceeds the amount of energy in the oil itself , at which point , you simply leave the oil in the ground .
The Export Land Model is a different issue , but similarly thorny , where nations that have oil develop their economy around oil and use more and more of it for their own needs , leaving less and less for export .
As the oil production eventually decreases , the export of the oil collapses .
Eventually the country becomes an oil importer .
The poster child of this is Indonesia , but other nations are following a similar pattern .
The people running these systems have quarterly profit reports they need to answer to .
Moving not just a particular country , but an entire civilisation away from a particular and extremely powerful energy source ( petroleum ) is a complex and difficult process that takes a minimum of twenty years to accomplish if one hopes to accomplish it without massive economic , social , and political turbulence and dislocation , according to the Hirsch Report , which says : Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides , but to have substantial impact , they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking .
And while the data is still coming in , it appears very likely that we , right now , are at that peak , in the form of a plateau of production that precedes the ineluctable and permanent downturn in petroleum production .
The lifestyle of driving a gas burning car long distances to work at a job that has little social utility or value will , necessarily , come to an end , and society will have to trainsition into a more localised form .
The global military machine will have to be dismantled so the resources that support it go into the survival of civilisation itself .
There is great social inertia to maintain the comfy Business As Usual approach , and a great deal of effort is being expended to derail the de-carbonisation of contemporary civilisation .
Certain elites are deeply entrenched in the power system that is sustaining this particular configuration of industrialism , and is hell bent for leather to prevent any alternatives to civilisation from evolving ( viz .
Dick Cheney , the Chinese gov't , Putin , et al ) and are dead set against encouraging it , as such would alter the power structure away from them .
This leads to several conclusions .
One is War Socialism [ warsocialism.com ] , where the world develops into a set of quasi-socialistic industrial state war machines that compete over the resources .
This avenue leads towards great instability and possible nuclear war , resulting in something like Cormac McCarthy 's " The Road " .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Establishing a carbon price in the U.S. system now, and tightening the system later could send a dangerously wrong signal to financial markets looking to invest in new energy technologies.
That's the whole idea.
The purpose is the maintenance of the "Business As Usual" model, where energy and resources are commodities restricted to a highly centralised distribution system that is utterly and fantastically wasteful and unsustainable, centred around an economic system that is based on unending growth and continuous expansion - again, another system that is utterly and fantastically wasteful and unsustainable.
We are facing an immanent and catastrophic collapse of net petroleum availability over the next 10 - 15 years.
The present economic downturn is simply allowing us to sustain a production plateau.
The collapse of net petroleum is due to several forces, but two big ones are Energy Return On Energy Invested [wikipedia.org] and The Export Land Model.
[wikipedia.org]

In a nutshell, with EROEI problems, the oil is harder and harder to get at requiring increasing amounts of oil to get at it.
Eventually, the amount of energy (in either oil, or "barrels of oil equivalent" amounts of energy - "boe") required to get the oil out of te ground exceeds the amount of energy in the oil itself, at which point, you simply leave the oil in the ground.
The Export Land Model is a different issue, but similarly thorny, where nations that have oil develop their economy around oil and use more and more of it for their own needs, leaving less and less for export.
As the oil production eventually decreases, the export of the oil collapses.
Eventually the country becomes an oil importer.
The poster child of this is Indonesia, but other nations are following a similar pattern.
The people running these systems have quarterly profit reports they need to answer to.
Moving not just a particular country, but an entire civilisation away from a particular and extremely powerful energy source (petroleum) is a complex and difficult process that takes a minimum of twenty years to accomplish if one hopes to accomplish it without massive economic, social, and political turbulence and dislocation, according to the Hirsch Report, which says:

Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.
And while the data is still coming in, it appears very likely that we, right now, are at that peak, in the form of a plateau of production that precedes the ineluctable and permanent downturn in petroleum production.
The lifestyle of driving a gas burning car long distances to work at a job that has little social utility or value will, necessarily, come to an end, and society will have to trainsition into a more localised form.
The global military machine will have to be dismantled so the resources that support it go into the survival of civilisation itself.
There is great social inertia to maintain the comfy Business As Usual approach, and a great deal of effort is being expended to derail the de-carbonisation of contemporary civilisation.
Certain elites are deeply entrenched in the power system that is sustaining this particular configuration of industrialism, and is hell bent for leather to prevent any alternatives to civilisation from evolving (viz.
Dick Cheney, the Chinese gov't, Putin, et al) and are dead set against encouraging it, as such would alter the power structure away from them.
This leads to several conclusions.
One is War Socialism [warsocialism.com], where the world develops into a set of quasi-socialistic industrial state war machines that compete over the resources.
This avenue leads towards great instability and possible nuclear war, resulting in something like Cormac McCarthy's "The Road".
[wikipedia.org]
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550079</id>
	<title>Re:Cap and Trade Issues</title>
	<author>Minimalist360</author>
	<datestamp>1246444140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why's that modded funny? By that logic one might as well moderate THIS HERE post interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why 's that modded funny ?
By that logic one might as well moderate THIS HERE post interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why's that modded funny?
By that logic one might as well moderate THIS HERE post interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550439</id>
	<title>Re:Success depends on the goal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The green movement is basically a watermelon, enviro green on the outside and red communist inside.</p></div><p>This is about where I stopped reading. I think you are about fifty years late with your McCarthyist red scare tactics, son.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The green movement is basically a watermelon , enviro green on the outside and red communist inside.This is about where I stopped reading .
I think you are about fifty years late with your McCarthyist red scare tactics , son .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The green movement is basically a watermelon, enviro green on the outside and red communist inside.This is about where I stopped reading.
I think you are about fifty years late with your McCarthyist red scare tactics, son.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28555993</id>
	<title>Of course it all has nothing to do with reason</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1246539300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so there is nothing to learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so there is nothing to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so there is nothing to learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548829</id>
	<title>What can the US learn?  NOTHING</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1246440300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The U.S. doesn't learn anything.  It "instructs" and it "enforces" but it doesn't learn anything.  When the rest of the world moved to the metric system, every school kid was given a metric ruler and a conversion chart for various weights and measures.  We were all moving into a newer, bigger, more progressive world... right?  Wrong!  Business didn't want to retool -- it was expensive and the older minds were unwilling to adjust.  The whole idea of prepping the younger generation was for "them" (that would be "us" today) to do the hard work of converting over so that "we" (the "us" of 30+ years ago) would have a plan in place but wouldn't have to actually do anything themselves.  But what happened?  That's obvious... "they" grew up, got jobs at places of employment who were still unwilling to retool.</p><p>The U.S. still doesn't have a difficult time enforcing our will upon others, but the fact that we still haven't updated our game to work well with others is indication enough of how the U.S. doesn't learn anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. does n't learn anything .
It " instructs " and it " enforces " but it does n't learn anything .
When the rest of the world moved to the metric system , every school kid was given a metric ruler and a conversion chart for various weights and measures .
We were all moving into a newer , bigger , more progressive world... right ? Wrong !
Business did n't want to retool -- it was expensive and the older minds were unwilling to adjust .
The whole idea of prepping the younger generation was for " them " ( that would be " us " today ) to do the hard work of converting over so that " we " ( the " us " of 30 + years ago ) would have a plan in place but would n't have to actually do anything themselves .
But what happened ?
That 's obvious... " they " grew up , got jobs at places of employment who were still unwilling to retool.The U.S. still does n't have a difficult time enforcing our will upon others , but the fact that we still have n't updated our game to work well with others is indication enough of how the U.S. does n't learn anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. doesn't learn anything.
It "instructs" and it "enforces" but it doesn't learn anything.
When the rest of the world moved to the metric system, every school kid was given a metric ruler and a conversion chart for various weights and measures.
We were all moving into a newer, bigger, more progressive world... right?  Wrong!
Business didn't want to retool -- it was expensive and the older minds were unwilling to adjust.
The whole idea of prepping the younger generation was for "them" (that would be "us" today) to do the hard work of converting over so that "we" (the "us" of 30+ years ago) would have a plan in place but wouldn't have to actually do anything themselves.
But what happened?
That's obvious... "they" grew up, got jobs at places of employment who were still unwilling to retool.The U.S. still doesn't have a difficult time enforcing our will upon others, but the fact that we still haven't updated our game to work well with others is indication enough of how the U.S. doesn't learn anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548597</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>el3mentary</author>
	<datestamp>1246439580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the US doesn't Have one yet? I thought You guys loved Capitalism and the Market system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the US does n't Have one yet ?
I thought You guys loved Capitalism and the Market system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the US doesn't Have one yet?
I thought You guys loved Capitalism and the Market system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550241</id>
	<title>Huge unnecessary tax during an apparent depression</title>
	<author>Coolhand2120</author>
	<datestamp>1246444740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The goal of the legislation is to make energy produced with fossil fuels more expensive.  Even so many proponents of the bill claim it will not drive up the cost of energy.  How stupid is that?  The goal of the bill is to drive up the cost of energy!
<br> <br>And where does the money go?  That's the stupidest part, is nobody really knows, it is as convoluted a scheme as anyone could ever come up with.
<br> <br>
  The only people who will benifit are the people who are lobbying for their little piece of the taxpayer pie right now.  What's the very worst part?  The senate approved the measure down party lines, squashing a filibuster, without reading even reading the god damn thing, AGAIN.  In fact there was a 300+ page amendment to the 1500+ page bill at 3AM the MORNING OF THE VOTE!  How can anyone who voted for this even claim to be responsible?  This is political absurdity at what I hope to be its peak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The goal of the legislation is to make energy produced with fossil fuels more expensive .
Even so many proponents of the bill claim it will not drive up the cost of energy .
How stupid is that ?
The goal of the bill is to drive up the cost of energy !
And where does the money go ?
That 's the stupidest part , is nobody really knows , it is as convoluted a scheme as anyone could ever come up with .
The only people who will benifit are the people who are lobbying for their little piece of the taxpayer pie right now .
What 's the very worst part ?
The senate approved the measure down party lines , squashing a filibuster , without reading even reading the god damn thing , AGAIN .
In fact there was a 300 + page amendment to the 1500 + page bill at 3AM the MORNING OF THE VOTE !
How can anyone who voted for this even claim to be responsible ?
This is political absurdity at what I hope to be its peak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goal of the legislation is to make energy produced with fossil fuels more expensive.
Even so many proponents of the bill claim it will not drive up the cost of energy.
How stupid is that?
The goal of the bill is to drive up the cost of energy!
And where does the money go?
That's the stupidest part, is nobody really knows, it is as convoluted a scheme as anyone could ever come up with.
The only people who will benifit are the people who are lobbying for their little piece of the taxpayer pie right now.
What's the very worst part?
The senate approved the measure down party lines, squashing a filibuster, without reading even reading the god damn thing, AGAIN.
In fact there was a 300+ page amendment to the 1500+ page bill at 3AM the MORNING OF THE VOTE!
How can anyone who voted for this even claim to be responsible?
This is political absurdity at what I hope to be its peak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549345</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1246441740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the tax is in addition to other taxation I'd agree; a better alternative would be to *replace* the current disgustingly complicated loopole riddled mess of a tax system with one that is simpler; property taxes, flat income tax or some sort of "fair tax" like alternative.  The current system is supportive of spending and acts in effect to favor some individuals over others arbitrarily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the tax is in addition to other taxation I 'd agree ; a better alternative would be to * replace * the current disgustingly complicated loopole riddled mess of a tax system with one that is simpler ; property taxes , flat income tax or some sort of " fair tax " like alternative .
The current system is supportive of spending and acts in effect to favor some individuals over others arbitrarily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the tax is in addition to other taxation I'd agree; a better alternative would be to *replace* the current disgustingly complicated loopole riddled mess of a tax system with one that is simpler; property taxes, flat income tax or some sort of "fair tax" like alternative.
The current system is supportive of spending and acts in effect to favor some individuals over others arbitrarily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259</id>
	<title>Cap and Trade Issues</title>
	<author>ThosLives</author>
	<datestamp>1246441560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's irritating is that cap and trade can't even do what it's supposed to do anyway.</p><p>Consider this: a government says "Ok, we'll only sell licenses to produce 100 million tons of CO2 per year." Factories produce a net 130 million tons of CO2 that year, even though they were only licensed to produce 100 million. There is no mechanism the government can employ to enforce the licenses. They could potentially fine the "overproduction" but that doesn't actually prevent the production of the CO2.</p><p>The "credits" bit doesn't work either, and it's even worse than the inability to prevent overproduction. The way I understand it, if I do some activity that offsets CO2 production, I get a credit. The problem is that word "offset". If it was only for sequestration that would be great, but my impression is that if I create a wind farm that produces the same power as a coal plant that would produce 1 million tons, I get a 1 million ton CO2 credit that I can sell to someone else. But since it's possible to create an infinite amount of things that do not emit CO2, there is no cap here either because it doesn't actually prevent the creation of more CO2 - or whatever the target emission might be.</p><p>The only real solution is, even though it's not political, is to simply tax CO2 emissions straight up. Those who don't emit don't pay the tax, those who do pay it. For consumers it's simple - you roll it into fuel taxes because CO2 emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption. For powerplants and such you do the same, and the taxes get passed on to consumers.</p><p>This solution, I think, has the best chance of actually resulting in the desired outcome without being overly complicated or reliant on false ideas of caps that cannot be enforced.</p><p>The biggest issue I see is that CO2 is a byproduct of simply being alive, so you will get into the mess of "do you tax all CO2 emissions, or only those made by machines? What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard? What about campfires?"</p><p>In all, it's really quite a mess when at its core people try to dictate the behavior of others. If you offer an incentive and people don't take it, the solution should not be to beat them with a stick and force them to take it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's irritating is that cap and trade ca n't even do what it 's supposed to do anyway.Consider this : a government says " Ok , we 'll only sell licenses to produce 100 million tons of CO2 per year .
" Factories produce a net 130 million tons of CO2 that year , even though they were only licensed to produce 100 million .
There is no mechanism the government can employ to enforce the licenses .
They could potentially fine the " overproduction " but that does n't actually prevent the production of the CO2.The " credits " bit does n't work either , and it 's even worse than the inability to prevent overproduction .
The way I understand it , if I do some activity that offsets CO2 production , I get a credit .
The problem is that word " offset " .
If it was only for sequestration that would be great , but my impression is that if I create a wind farm that produces the same power as a coal plant that would produce 1 million tons , I get a 1 million ton CO2 credit that I can sell to someone else .
But since it 's possible to create an infinite amount of things that do not emit CO2 , there is no cap here either because it does n't actually prevent the creation of more CO2 - or whatever the target emission might be.The only real solution is , even though it 's not political , is to simply tax CO2 emissions straight up .
Those who do n't emit do n't pay the tax , those who do pay it .
For consumers it 's simple - you roll it into fuel taxes because CO2 emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption .
For powerplants and such you do the same , and the taxes get passed on to consumers.This solution , I think , has the best chance of actually resulting in the desired outcome without being overly complicated or reliant on false ideas of caps that can not be enforced.The biggest issue I see is that CO2 is a byproduct of simply being alive , so you will get into the mess of " do you tax all CO2 emissions , or only those made by machines ?
What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard ?
What about campfires ?
" In all , it 's really quite a mess when at its core people try to dictate the behavior of others .
If you offer an incentive and people do n't take it , the solution should not be to beat them with a stick and force them to take it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's irritating is that cap and trade can't even do what it's supposed to do anyway.Consider this: a government says "Ok, we'll only sell licenses to produce 100 million tons of CO2 per year.
" Factories produce a net 130 million tons of CO2 that year, even though they were only licensed to produce 100 million.
There is no mechanism the government can employ to enforce the licenses.
They could potentially fine the "overproduction" but that doesn't actually prevent the production of the CO2.The "credits" bit doesn't work either, and it's even worse than the inability to prevent overproduction.
The way I understand it, if I do some activity that offsets CO2 production, I get a credit.
The problem is that word "offset".
If it was only for sequestration that would be great, but my impression is that if I create a wind farm that produces the same power as a coal plant that would produce 1 million tons, I get a 1 million ton CO2 credit that I can sell to someone else.
But since it's possible to create an infinite amount of things that do not emit CO2, there is no cap here either because it doesn't actually prevent the creation of more CO2 - or whatever the target emission might be.The only real solution is, even though it's not political, is to simply tax CO2 emissions straight up.
Those who don't emit don't pay the tax, those who do pay it.
For consumers it's simple - you roll it into fuel taxes because CO2 emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption.
For powerplants and such you do the same, and the taxes get passed on to consumers.This solution, I think, has the best chance of actually resulting in the desired outcome without being overly complicated or reliant on false ideas of caps that cannot be enforced.The biggest issue I see is that CO2 is a byproduct of simply being alive, so you will get into the mess of "do you tax all CO2 emissions, or only those made by machines?
What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard?
What about campfires?
"In all, it's really quite a mess when at its core people try to dictate the behavior of others.
If you offer an incentive and people don't take it, the solution should not be to beat them with a stick and force them to take it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549223</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1246441440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...is that it's not progressive. So Joe Sixpack bears a much higher load in proportion to, say, Al Gore</i> </p><p>Whether a Cap &amp; Trade scheme is progressive depends entirely on how you give out the emissions permits.  Auction them off and rebate the proceeds to the taxpayer (even if it's a flat check to every American), you have an enormously progressive plan.**  Give them away and you have a regressive plan.</p><p>Now if you want a progressive version, contact your member of Congress and tell them to support that.  Unfortunately, the regressive version seems to be what the most conservative members of Congress want, and since the Republicans are opposing <i>anything</i>, then that's probably what we'll get.  It's still better than nothing, and if you want better, then stop concern trolling about it and start voting for more progressive Congresspeople.</p><p>** Citation, from the CBO analysis.  Sadly I have to give the graph excerpted on this blog page, since I didn't have time to hunt for the original: <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/making\_cap\_and\_trade\_regressive.php" title="thinkprogress.org">http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/making\_cap\_and\_trade\_regressive.php</a> [thinkprogress.org]).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is that it 's not progressive .
So Joe Sixpack bears a much higher load in proportion to , say , Al Gore Whether a Cap &amp; Trade scheme is progressive depends entirely on how you give out the emissions permits .
Auction them off and rebate the proceeds to the taxpayer ( even if it 's a flat check to every American ) , you have an enormously progressive plan .
* * Give them away and you have a regressive plan.Now if you want a progressive version , contact your member of Congress and tell them to support that .
Unfortunately , the regressive version seems to be what the most conservative members of Congress want , and since the Republicans are opposing anything , then that 's probably what we 'll get .
It 's still better than nothing , and if you want better , then stop concern trolling about it and start voting for more progressive Congresspeople .
* * Citation , from the CBO analysis .
Sadly I have to give the graph excerpted on this blog page , since I did n't have time to hunt for the original : http : //yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/making \ _cap \ _and \ _trade \ _regressive.php [ thinkprogress.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is that it's not progressive.
So Joe Sixpack bears a much higher load in proportion to, say, Al Gore Whether a Cap &amp; Trade scheme is progressive depends entirely on how you give out the emissions permits.
Auction them off and rebate the proceeds to the taxpayer (even if it's a flat check to every American), you have an enormously progressive plan.
**  Give them away and you have a regressive plan.Now if you want a progressive version, contact your member of Congress and tell them to support that.
Unfortunately, the regressive version seems to be what the most conservative members of Congress want, and since the Republicans are opposing anything, then that's probably what we'll get.
It's still better than nothing, and if you want better, then stop concern trolling about it and start voting for more progressive Congresspeople.
** Citation, from the CBO analysis.
Sadly I have to give the graph excerpted on this blog page, since I didn't have time to hunt for the original: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/making\_cap\_and\_trade\_regressive.php [thinkprogress.org]).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549453</id>
	<title>But... taxes actually work!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246442100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sure, do all you can to help clean up the environment and to minimize or eliminate pollution. I am all for cleaner, greener, etc. I am not for more tax burdens on top of the already increased tax burdens I and many many others are now facing in this country.</p></div></blockquote><p>One of the best ways to reduce pollution is to tax it. Reducing pollution costs money. The purpose of a corporation is to generate profit for shareholders. Given the choice, no corporation would reduce pollution instead of returning a higher dividend. So, for pollution to be reduced, government has to be involved somehow. There are two possible ways:</p><ul><li>A blanket ban on technologies. Government says what you can and can't use in your business.</li><li>A tax that charges the externality cost back to the original product and lets the market produce the most efficient solution</li></ul><p>I recommend that everyone who is interested in this topic should read <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Undercover-Economist-Tim-Harford/dp/0349119856" title="amazon.co.uk">The Undercover Economist</a> [amazon.co.uk] by Tim Hartford, particularly chapter "Crosstown Traffic" subsection "Battling pollution on the cheap". The gist of it is that sulphur dioxide emissions were successfully reduced by taxation to the point where the tax is negligible. Initially, the corporations involved in power generation claimed that it would be impossible to do, that each ton of reduction in emissions would cost thousands of dollars. And yet, within 3 years of an auction based taxation being introduced, the cost per ton had fallen to $70.</p><p>Isn't this exactly what we all want? A market based solution to the problem, rather than overbearing government regulation?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , do all you can to help clean up the environment and to minimize or eliminate pollution .
I am all for cleaner , greener , etc .
I am not for more tax burdens on top of the already increased tax burdens I and many many others are now facing in this country.One of the best ways to reduce pollution is to tax it .
Reducing pollution costs money .
The purpose of a corporation is to generate profit for shareholders .
Given the choice , no corporation would reduce pollution instead of returning a higher dividend .
So , for pollution to be reduced , government has to be involved somehow .
There are two possible ways : A blanket ban on technologies .
Government says what you can and ca n't use in your business.A tax that charges the externality cost back to the original product and lets the market produce the most efficient solutionI recommend that everyone who is interested in this topic should read The Undercover Economist [ amazon.co.uk ] by Tim Hartford , particularly chapter " Crosstown Traffic " subsection " Battling pollution on the cheap " .
The gist of it is that sulphur dioxide emissions were successfully reduced by taxation to the point where the tax is negligible .
Initially , the corporations involved in power generation claimed that it would be impossible to do , that each ton of reduction in emissions would cost thousands of dollars .
And yet , within 3 years of an auction based taxation being introduced , the cost per ton had fallen to $ 70.Is n't this exactly what we all want ?
A market based solution to the problem , rather than overbearing government regulation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, do all you can to help clean up the environment and to minimize or eliminate pollution.
I am all for cleaner, greener, etc.
I am not for more tax burdens on top of the already increased tax burdens I and many many others are now facing in this country.One of the best ways to reduce pollution is to tax it.
Reducing pollution costs money.
The purpose of a corporation is to generate profit for shareholders.
Given the choice, no corporation would reduce pollution instead of returning a higher dividend.
So, for pollution to be reduced, government has to be involved somehow.
There are two possible ways:A blanket ban on technologies.
Government says what you can and can't use in your business.A tax that charges the externality cost back to the original product and lets the market produce the most efficient solutionI recommend that everyone who is interested in this topic should read The Undercover Economist [amazon.co.uk] by Tim Hartford, particularly chapter "Crosstown Traffic" subsection "Battling pollution on the cheap".
The gist of it is that sulphur dioxide emissions were successfully reduced by taxation to the point where the tax is negligible.
Initially, the corporations involved in power generation claimed that it would be impossible to do, that each ton of reduction in emissions would cost thousands of dollars.
And yet, within 3 years of an auction based taxation being introduced, the cost per ton had fallen to $70.Isn't this exactly what we all want?
A market based solution to the problem, rather than overbearing government regulation?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549697</id>
	<title>Re:And one lesson you can learn *before* failing</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1246442820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Any plan for such a global problem MUST take into account the actions of such "defecting" countries, or you might as well not bother.</i> </p><p><i>Absolutely</i> you might as well bother.  Do you really think that we're ever going to convince <i>any</i> of the BRIC countries to volunteer for this, if the richest developed nations won't?</p><p>Basically if you only support a cap provided that <i>everyone</i> signs on now, then you don't support a cap.</p><p>The best strategy right now is for us, richest developed nations, to implement a cap now.  Work the bugs out of it.  And --- most importantly  it to incentivize technological innovation that will ultimately make compliance affordable to developing nations down the road.  It might also make us a lot of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any plan for such a global problem MUST take into account the actions of such " defecting " countries , or you might as well not bother .
Absolutely you might as well bother .
Do you really think that we 're ever going to convince any of the BRIC countries to volunteer for this , if the richest developed nations wo n't ? Basically if you only support a cap provided that everyone signs on now , then you do n't support a cap.The best strategy right now is for us , richest developed nations , to implement a cap now .
Work the bugs out of it .
And --- most importantly it to incentivize technological innovation that will ultimately make compliance affordable to developing nations down the road .
It might also make us a lot of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any plan for such a global problem MUST take into account the actions of such "defecting" countries, or you might as well not bother.
Absolutely you might as well bother.
Do you really think that we're ever going to convince any of the BRIC countries to volunteer for this, if the richest developed nations won't?Basically if you only support a cap provided that everyone signs on now, then you don't support a cap.The best strategy right now is for us, richest developed nations, to implement a cap now.
Work the bugs out of it.
And --- most importantly  it to incentivize technological innovation that will ultimately make compliance affordable to developing nations down the road.
It might also make us a lot of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28553513</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>gumbi west</author>
	<datestamp>1246464840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So electricity prices rose 8\% last year <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5\_6\_b.html" title="doe.gov"> (look at the numbers in the bottom right for grand means)</a> [doe.gov] and if there is just 2\% additional inflation, they will call it off, ha! it has also been up by about 10\% each year recently, see the table labeled, "Current and Historical Monthly Retail Sales, Revenues and Average Revenue per Kilowatthour by State and by Sector (Form EIA-826)."

<p>However, the linked article suggests that targets will be very easy to meet and that the cost will not change much. This is really great news for conservationist because it means that we can set total pollution targets and meet them at very low cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So electricity prices rose 8 \ % last year ( look at the numbers in the bottom right for grand means ) [ doe.gov ] and if there is just 2 \ % additional inflation , they will call it off , ha !
it has also been up by about 10 \ % each year recently , see the table labeled , " Current and Historical Monthly Retail Sales , Revenues and Average Revenue per Kilowatthour by State and by Sector ( Form EIA-826 ) .
" However , the linked article suggests that targets will be very easy to meet and that the cost will not change much .
This is really great news for conservationist because it means that we can set total pollution targets and meet them at very low cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So electricity prices rose 8\% last year  (look at the numbers in the bottom right for grand means) [doe.gov] and if there is just 2\% additional inflation, they will call it off, ha!
it has also been up by about 10\% each year recently, see the table labeled, "Current and Historical Monthly Retail Sales, Revenues and Average Revenue per Kilowatthour by State and by Sector (Form EIA-826).
"

However, the linked article suggests that targets will be very easy to meet and that the cost will not change much.
This is really great news for conservationist because it means that we can set total pollution targets and meet them at very low cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549101</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246441080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about NOT burdening each and every citizen with higher energy costs for some forced and flawed utopian ideal which might result in a whopping 0.2 percent carbon emmissions. further wrecking the U.S. economy and industries.</p></div><p>What's flawed about it? How about some specifics. Also, where's your information concerning the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.2 data point coming from?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If the new technologies being talked about, worked on, etc. are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation, too bad.</p><p>The solution would be to get the "new" technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation, not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this.</p></div><p>Although this is the most insightful part of your post, perhaps the start up costs make these ventures too expensive for short term investment, and the long term payoffs will benefit the entire economy. Be a little more open minded.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, do all you can to help clean up the environment and to minimize or eliminate pollution. I am all for cleaner, greener, etc. I am not for more tax burdens on top of the already increased tax burdens I and many many others are now facing in this country.</p><p>The U.S. government is (and has been) in the hands of A) lunatics and B) people that couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it (the greatest majority of them, in any case).</p></div><p>Who in the government has been deemed mentally unbalanced? I'd bet you can't cough up one case of a ruling of "diminished capacity" for a government employee, let alone anyone of consequence.</p><p> And what criteria are you using for "people that couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it. That's pretty disparaging to a lot of hard working people that you've never met, and it borders on clinical paranoia. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about NOT burdening each and every citizen with higher energy costs for some forced and flawed utopian ideal which might result in a whopping 0.2 percent carbon emmissions .
further wrecking the U.S. economy and industries.What 's flawed about it ?
How about some specifics .
Also , where 's your information concerning the .2 data point coming from ? If the new technologies being talked about , worked on , etc .
are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation , too bad.The solution would be to get the " new " technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation , not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this.Although this is the most insightful part of your post , perhaps the start up costs make these ventures too expensive for short term investment , and the long term payoffs will benefit the entire economy .
Be a little more open minded.Sure , do all you can to help clean up the environment and to minimize or eliminate pollution .
I am all for cleaner , greener , etc .
I am not for more tax burdens on top of the already increased tax burdens I and many many others are now facing in this country.The U.S. government is ( and has been ) in the hands of A ) lunatics and B ) people that could n't run a business if their lives depended on it ( the greatest majority of them , in any case ) .Who in the government has been deemed mentally unbalanced ?
I 'd bet you ca n't cough up one case of a ruling of " diminished capacity " for a government employee , let alone anyone of consequence .
And what criteria are you using for " people that could n't run a business if their lives depended on it .
That 's pretty disparaging to a lot of hard working people that you 've never met , and it borders on clinical paranoia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about NOT burdening each and every citizen with higher energy costs for some forced and flawed utopian ideal which might result in a whopping 0.2 percent carbon emmissions.
further wrecking the U.S. economy and industries.What's flawed about it?
How about some specifics.
Also, where's your information concerning the .2 data point coming from?If the new technologies being talked about, worked on, etc.
are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation, too bad.The solution would be to get the "new" technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation, not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this.Although this is the most insightful part of your post, perhaps the start up costs make these ventures too expensive for short term investment, and the long term payoffs will benefit the entire economy.
Be a little more open minded.Sure, do all you can to help clean up the environment and to minimize or eliminate pollution.
I am all for cleaner, greener, etc.
I am not for more tax burdens on top of the already increased tax burdens I and many many others are now facing in this country.The U.S. government is (and has been) in the hands of A) lunatics and B) people that couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it (the greatest majority of them, in any case).Who in the government has been deemed mentally unbalanced?
I'd bet you can't cough up one case of a ruling of "diminished capacity" for a government employee, let alone anyone of consequence.
And what criteria are you using for "people that couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it.
That's pretty disparaging to a lot of hard working people that you've never met, and it borders on clinical paranoia. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1246443300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So pay a uniform "pre-bate" [1]to everyone equal to the "energy tax" they would pay </i> <br> <br>Hold the phone, homer. How about don't take it from me in the first place! The government can't send you a 'check' unless they take the money from you first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So pay a uniform " pre-bate " [ 1 ] to everyone equal to the " energy tax " they would pay Hold the phone , homer .
How about do n't take it from me in the first place !
The government ca n't send you a 'check ' unless they take the money from you first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So pay a uniform "pre-bate" [1]to everyone equal to the "energy tax" they would pay   Hold the phone, homer.
How about don't take it from me in the first place!
The government can't send you a 'check' unless they take the money from you first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667</id>
	<title>The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>tcopeland</author>
	<datestamp>1246439760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is that it's not progressive.  So Joe Sixpack bears a much higher load in proportion to, say, Al Gore.  <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/36393-1.html" title="rollcall.com">An article by Robert Zubrin</a> [rollcall.com] pegs this cost as $1800 for a family of four.  This on top of a 9.x\% unemployment rate.  Huh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is that it 's not progressive .
So Joe Sixpack bears a much higher load in proportion to , say , Al Gore .
An article by Robert Zubrin [ rollcall.com ] pegs this cost as $ 1800 for a family of four .
This on top of a 9.x \ % unemployment rate .
Huh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is that it's not progressive.
So Joe Sixpack bears a much higher load in proportion to, say, Al Gore.
An article by Robert Zubrin [rollcall.com] pegs this cost as $1800 for a family of four.
This on top of a 9.x\% unemployment rate.
Huh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551619</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246450980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entities polluting will not pay a dime, they will simply pass on the higher cost of their products to their customers. You (assuming you live in the States) are the one that will pay. Not the wealthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entities polluting will not pay a dime , they will simply pass on the higher cost of their products to their customers .
You ( assuming you live in the States ) are the one that will pay .
Not the wealthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entities polluting will not pay a dime, they will simply pass on the higher cost of their products to their customers.
You (assuming you live in the States) are the one that will pay.
Not the wealthy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552509</id>
	<title>Re:Cap and Trade Issues</title>
	<author>ThosLives</author>
	<datestamp>1246456680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to write a bit of agreement and some rebuttal to your post but it got me thinking of a better solution, though no legislature would ever pass such:</p><p>Ban all construction of new combustion-based stationary power plants, and prohibit repair of old plants - let them die. That's it.</p><p>This will have several effects, most of which are not pleasant in the short term. The first is this: The price of electricity will begin to increase as supply does not keep up with demand.  This will have two knock-on effects which are more beneficial: rational consumers will start using less electricity and the relative affordability of "green" power will improve.</p><p>So in the long run things are better, but just like every investment there is a reallocation of present wealth to that investment for a payoff later. I just realized that the folks that are complaining about reduction in GDP growth to "deal with carbon dioxide" aren't considering that what that means is that they are "investing" some of today's GDP growth potential (or whatever metric they choose) to have a greater GDP growth in the future.  Same thing as personal finances: I have to sacrifice some level of luxury today to put money in savings, but that savings means that I will have to put forth much less effort in the future to maintain a reasonable standard of living.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to write a bit of agreement and some rebuttal to your post but it got me thinking of a better solution , though no legislature would ever pass such : Ban all construction of new combustion-based stationary power plants , and prohibit repair of old plants - let them die .
That 's it.This will have several effects , most of which are not pleasant in the short term .
The first is this : The price of electricity will begin to increase as supply does not keep up with demand .
This will have two knock-on effects which are more beneficial : rational consumers will start using less electricity and the relative affordability of " green " power will improve.So in the long run things are better , but just like every investment there is a reallocation of present wealth to that investment for a payoff later .
I just realized that the folks that are complaining about reduction in GDP growth to " deal with carbon dioxide " are n't considering that what that means is that they are " investing " some of today 's GDP growth potential ( or whatever metric they choose ) to have a greater GDP growth in the future .
Same thing as personal finances : I have to sacrifice some level of luxury today to put money in savings , but that savings means that I will have to put forth much less effort in the future to maintain a reasonable standard of living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to write a bit of agreement and some rebuttal to your post but it got me thinking of a better solution, though no legislature would ever pass such:Ban all construction of new combustion-based stationary power plants, and prohibit repair of old plants - let them die.
That's it.This will have several effects, most of which are not pleasant in the short term.
The first is this: The price of electricity will begin to increase as supply does not keep up with demand.
This will have two knock-on effects which are more beneficial: rational consumers will start using less electricity and the relative affordability of "green" power will improve.So in the long run things are better, but just like every investment there is a reallocation of present wealth to that investment for a payoff later.
I just realized that the folks that are complaining about reduction in GDP growth to "deal with carbon dioxide" aren't considering that what that means is that they are "investing" some of today's GDP growth potential (or whatever metric they choose) to have a greater GDP growth in the future.
Same thing as personal finances: I have to sacrifice some level of luxury today to put money in savings, but that savings means that I will have to put forth much less effort in the future to maintain a reasonable standard of living.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551391</id>
	<title>Offsets are the largest problem</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1246449780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is my understanding that the single largest problem with the European plan, were offsets.</p><p>"Meanwhile, politicians also opened the door wider to so-called carbon offsets, which allow companies to meet their emissions-&#194;reduction commitments by financing rainforest conservation, renewable-energy investments, and other low-carbon projects in developing countries."</p><p>Costs went up due to putting any price on carbon emission.  It cost a company 0 dollars before to pollute, now it costs X.  That is the downside to consumers, one we'll need to live with until more power can be produced cheaply by renewables.</p><p>However, by allowing offsets (A company does not need to change its ways, just plant some trees), there was no incentive to move towards non-carbon polluting energy sources.</p><p>The European plan is basically the worst of both worlds:  carbon now costs 'something', so energy now costs more, combined with a nice loophole allowing a company to never have to change any of its carbon based energy sources, thereby guaranteeing that the cost of energy would never drop.</p><p>This is why I am in favor of pure regulation, similar to the clean water act:<br>1.  Caps that very slowly clamp down on carbon emissions over time.<br>2.  Regulated by monitors similar to water pollutants<br>3.  Companies that don't get their ass in gear and start changing, get fined heavily.</p><p>Will this make the cost of energy go up?  Yup.  However "cap and trade + offsets" does also, only we have zero environmental gain, and zero renewable infrastructure gain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is my understanding that the single largest problem with the European plan , were offsets .
" Meanwhile , politicians also opened the door wider to so-called carbon offsets , which allow companies to meet their emissions-   reduction commitments by financing rainforest conservation , renewable-energy investments , and other low-carbon projects in developing countries .
" Costs went up due to putting any price on carbon emission .
It cost a company 0 dollars before to pollute , now it costs X. That is the downside to consumers , one we 'll need to live with until more power can be produced cheaply by renewables.However , by allowing offsets ( A company does not need to change its ways , just plant some trees ) , there was no incentive to move towards non-carbon polluting energy sources.The European plan is basically the worst of both worlds : carbon now costs 'something ' , so energy now costs more , combined with a nice loophole allowing a company to never have to change any of its carbon based energy sources , thereby guaranteeing that the cost of energy would never drop.This is why I am in favor of pure regulation , similar to the clean water act : 1 .
Caps that very slowly clamp down on carbon emissions over time.2 .
Regulated by monitors similar to water pollutants3 .
Companies that do n't get their ass in gear and start changing , get fined heavily.Will this make the cost of energy go up ?
Yup. However " cap and trade + offsets " does also , only we have zero environmental gain , and zero renewable infrastructure gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is my understanding that the single largest problem with the European plan, were offsets.
"Meanwhile, politicians also opened the door wider to so-called carbon offsets, which allow companies to meet their emissions-Âreduction commitments by financing rainforest conservation, renewable-energy investments, and other low-carbon projects in developing countries.
"Costs went up due to putting any price on carbon emission.
It cost a company 0 dollars before to pollute, now it costs X.  That is the downside to consumers, one we'll need to live with until more power can be produced cheaply by renewables.However, by allowing offsets (A company does not need to change its ways, just plant some trees), there was no incentive to move towards non-carbon polluting energy sources.The European plan is basically the worst of both worlds:  carbon now costs 'something', so energy now costs more, combined with a nice loophole allowing a company to never have to change any of its carbon based energy sources, thereby guaranteeing that the cost of energy would never drop.This is why I am in favor of pure regulation, similar to the clean water act:1.
Caps that very slowly clamp down on carbon emissions over time.2.
Regulated by monitors similar to water pollutants3.
Companies that don't get their ass in gear and start changing, get fined heavily.Will this make the cost of energy go up?
Yup.  However "cap and trade + offsets" does also, only we have zero environmental gain, and zero renewable infrastructure gain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549905</id>
	<title>Re:Embarrassing for the time we live in....</title>
	<author>McBeer</author>
	<datestamp>1246443480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Global Warming has been exposed as false</p></div><p>[Citation Needed]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
Global Warming has been exposed as false [ Citation Needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
Global Warming has been exposed as false[Citation Needed]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551163</id>
	<title>Re:Only dealing with symptoms, not the problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246448760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, how would you deal with the population "problem" then? Short of killing vast numbers of people, that is.</p><p>Of course, if we are going to kill lots of people to solve the problem, it would make sense to start with the biggest polluters, such as Americans.</p><p>Oh, and the responses to this article should finally put to rest any claims that Slashdot is an informed audience. Apologies to the few insightful posters, but they're being drowned out among lots of "climate change is all a communist plot!" style idiocy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , how would you deal with the population " problem " then ?
Short of killing vast numbers of people , that is.Of course , if we are going to kill lots of people to solve the problem , it would make sense to start with the biggest polluters , such as Americans.Oh , and the responses to this article should finally put to rest any claims that Slashdot is an informed audience .
Apologies to the few insightful posters , but they 're being drowned out among lots of " climate change is all a communist plot !
" style idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, how would you deal with the population "problem" then?
Short of killing vast numbers of people, that is.Of course, if we are going to kill lots of people to solve the problem, it would make sense to start with the biggest polluters, such as Americans.Oh, and the responses to this article should finally put to rest any claims that Slashdot is an informed audience.
Apologies to the few insightful posters, but they're being drowned out among lots of "climate change is all a communist plot!
" style idiocy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550527</id>
	<title>Re:Wind/Solar Only?</title>
	<author>dan\_sdot</author>
	<datestamp>1246445880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because many of the most powerful environmental lobbies are just a bunch of fanatics who throw around the word "science" even though their hatred of nuclear power is more of a religion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because many of the most powerful environmental lobbies are just a bunch of fanatics who throw around the word " science " even though their hatred of nuclear power is more of a religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because many of the most powerful environmental lobbies are just a bunch of fanatics who throw around the word "science" even though their hatred of nuclear power is more of a religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549367</id>
	<title>20 Euros per ton?</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1246441800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The SAVING GRACE of the program is that shares are so low.  This is simply an artificially placed surcharge on an economy.  I hope that cap and trade in the US is similarly ineffective.<br> <br>

If the price is small, companies will continue unchanged, passing the additional expense along, slowing down the economy.  If the price is large enough that other (more expensive) alternatives are cheaper, companies will switch... passing the large additional expense along, slowing down the economy even more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The SAVING GRACE of the program is that shares are so low .
This is simply an artificially placed surcharge on an economy .
I hope that cap and trade in the US is similarly ineffective .
If the price is small , companies will continue unchanged , passing the additional expense along , slowing down the economy .
If the price is large enough that other ( more expensive ) alternatives are cheaper , companies will switch... passing the large additional expense along , slowing down the economy even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SAVING GRACE of the program is that shares are so low.
This is simply an artificially placed surcharge on an economy.
I hope that cap and trade in the US is similarly ineffective.
If the price is small, companies will continue unchanged, passing the additional expense along, slowing down the economy.
If the price is large enough that other (more expensive) alternatives are cheaper, companies will switch... passing the large additional expense along, slowing down the economy even more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549245</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246441500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...is that it's not progressive.</i></p><p>Nor should it be, you pollute you should pay.  The more you pollute, and the wealthy generally pollute more, the more you pay.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is that it 's not progressive.Nor should it be , you pollute you should pay .
The more you pollute , and the wealthy generally pollute more , the more you pay .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is that it's not progressive.Nor should it be, you pollute you should pay.
The more you pollute, and the wealthy generally pollute more, the more you pay.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550929</id>
	<title>Environmentalism = Communism?!</title>
	<author>MobyTurbo</author>
	<datestamp>1246447560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agreed with most of your message but the idea that the environmentalists are Soviet-controlled sounds rather suspicious, as well as out of date - you should call them terrorists instead.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) Besides, the Sovs didn't exactly consider pollution a problem, and were quite anti-environmentalist.<p>

You can see this today in Communist China, not exactly a beacon of environmentalism. I know someone from Mainland China who was surprised when she came to America that we didn't need to wipe the windows of our homes to clean off the soot a couple of times a week, to give you some idea of what it's like there. I would think that if anything, the concern on how much cutting back on pollution hurts the employment of the working class (i.e. the proletariat) is classic Marxist dogma, at least that's what Communists actually *say* about the matter.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agreed with most of your message but the idea that the environmentalists are Soviet-controlled sounds rather suspicious , as well as out of date - you should call them terrorists instead .
; - ) Besides , the Sovs did n't exactly consider pollution a problem , and were quite anti-environmentalist .
You can see this today in Communist China , not exactly a beacon of environmentalism .
I know someone from Mainland China who was surprised when she came to America that we did n't need to wipe the windows of our homes to clean off the soot a couple of times a week , to give you some idea of what it 's like there .
I would think that if anything , the concern on how much cutting back on pollution hurts the employment of the working class ( i.e .
the proletariat ) is classic Marxist dogma , at least that 's what Communists actually * say * about the matter .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agreed with most of your message but the idea that the environmentalists are Soviet-controlled sounds rather suspicious, as well as out of date - you should call them terrorists instead.
;-) Besides, the Sovs didn't exactly consider pollution a problem, and were quite anti-environmentalist.
You can see this today in Communist China, not exactly a beacon of environmentalism.
I know someone from Mainland China who was surprised when she came to America that we didn't need to wipe the windows of our homes to clean off the soot a couple of times a week, to give you some idea of what it's like there.
I would think that if anything, the concern on how much cutting back on pollution hurts the employment of the working class (i.e.
the proletariat) is classic Marxist dogma, at least that's what Communists actually *say* about the matter.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551541</id>
	<title>Re:Cap and Trade Issues</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1246450560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The biggest issue I see is that CO2 is a byproduct of simply being alive, so you will get into the mess of "do you tax all CO2 emissions, or only those made by machines? What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard? What about campfires?"</i></p><p>Well, lets see.</p><p>The European cap and trade system exempts anyone who's producing less than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year. I converted 25,000 tons of CO2 into the volume of that CO2, and then looked up figures for the size of the (three giant buildings) of the US Library of congress and did a little estimating, and came up with the result that 25,000 tons of CO2 is around 22,000 times the volume of the Library of Congress.</p><p>So if you're emitting less than 22,000 LOCs of CO2 per year then you don't get taxed. I'd say it's safe to assume that "breathing" is going to fall somewhat below that threshold. "<i>What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard?</i>" Well I sure as hell wouldn't want to be his next door neighbor if his "little brush fire" is spewing out more than two and a half LOCs of CO2 per hour. I kinda consider it a plus if the air actually contains enough oxygen to.... you know.... actually sustain life in my living room.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest issue I see is that CO2 is a byproduct of simply being alive , so you will get into the mess of " do you tax all CO2 emissions , or only those made by machines ?
What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard ?
What about campfires ?
" Well , lets see.The European cap and trade system exempts anyone who 's producing less than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year .
I converted 25,000 tons of CO2 into the volume of that CO2 , and then looked up figures for the size of the ( three giant buildings ) of the US Library of congress and did a little estimating , and came up with the result that 25,000 tons of CO2 is around 22,000 times the volume of the Library of Congress.So if you 're emitting less than 22,000 LOCs of CO2 per year then you do n't get taxed .
I 'd say it 's safe to assume that " breathing " is going to fall somewhat below that threshold .
" What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard ?
" Well I sure as hell would n't want to be his next door neighbor if his " little brush fire " is spewing out more than two and a half LOCs of CO2 per hour .
I kinda consider it a plus if the air actually contains enough oxygen to.... you know.... actually sustain life in my living room.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest issue I see is that CO2 is a byproduct of simply being alive, so you will get into the mess of "do you tax all CO2 emissions, or only those made by machines?
What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard?
What about campfires?
"Well, lets see.The European cap and trade system exempts anyone who's producing less than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year.
I converted 25,000 tons of CO2 into the volume of that CO2, and then looked up figures for the size of the (three giant buildings) of the US Library of congress and did a little estimating, and came up with the result that 25,000 tons of CO2 is around 22,000 times the volume of the Library of Congress.So if you're emitting less than 22,000 LOCs of CO2 per year then you don't get taxed.
I'd say it's safe to assume that "breathing" is going to fall somewhat below that threshold.
"What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard?
" Well I sure as hell wouldn't want to be his next door neighbor if his "little brush fire" is spewing out more than two and a half LOCs of CO2 per hour.
I kinda consider it a plus if the air actually contains enough oxygen to.... you know.... actually sustain life in my living room.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550919</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>So pay a uniform "pre-bate" [1]to everyone equal to the "energy tax" they would pay </i></p><p>Hold the phone, homer. How about don't take it from me in the first place! The government can't send you a 'check' unless they take the money from you first.</p></div><p>Where does "money" come from?</p><p>Who "makes" money? you? or the government?</p><p>Our currency has no backing</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So pay a uniform " pre-bate " [ 1 ] to everyone equal to the " energy tax " they would pay Hold the phone , homer .
How about do n't take it from me in the first place !
The government ca n't send you a 'check ' unless they take the money from you first.Where does " money " come from ? Who " makes " money ?
you ? or the government ? Our currency has no backing</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So pay a uniform "pre-bate" [1]to everyone equal to the "energy tax" they would pay Hold the phone, homer.
How about don't take it from me in the first place!
The government can't send you a 'check' unless they take the money from you first.Where does "money" come from?Who "makes" money?
you? or the government?Our currency has no backing
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549733</id>
	<title>Re:And one lesson you can learn *before* failing</title>
	<author>Xtravar</author>
	<datestamp>1246442940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.  If just the first world countries use alternative fuels, then the price of gasoline won't go down since the growing economies of 3rd world countries will counter-balance the effect.  We need *everyone* to use alternative fuel... so driving my Hummer is cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
If just the first world countries use alternative fuels , then the price of gasoline wo n't go down since the growing economies of 3rd world countries will counter-balance the effect .
We need * everyone * to use alternative fuel... so driving my Hummer is cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
If just the first world countries use alternative fuels, then the price of gasoline won't go down since the growing economies of 3rd world countries will counter-balance the effect.
We need *everyone* to use alternative fuel... so driving my Hummer is cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554075</id>
	<title>Re:Wind/Solar Only?</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246472220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuclear power is not renewable, and it's not cheap. Or particular low carbon when you include the construction, mining and processing the fuel, and eventual decomissioning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear power is not renewable , and it 's not cheap .
Or particular low carbon when you include the construction , mining and processing the fuel , and eventual decomissioning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear power is not renewable, and it's not cheap.
Or particular low carbon when you include the construction, mining and processing the fuel, and eventual decomissioning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549441</id>
	<title>Did I miss something?</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1246442040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't heard of any proposed legislation for taxing the CO2 emissions of citizens. And successful cap and trade programs for other emissions have been in the U.S. for a while now(check the wikipedia Emissions trading page for examples). I'll gladly rail against any proposed legislation taxing citizens CO2 usage, but I read through these comments and I feel like I've fallen into a forest of strawmen.
<br> <br>
And it's fine if you don't RTFA, I mean this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., but at least RTFS. The stated problem with the EU legislation is that the trade portion of the program was too generous in awarding credits and let pollution continue be cheaper than improving emissions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't heard of any proposed legislation for taxing the CO2 emissions of citizens .
And successful cap and trade programs for other emissions have been in the U.S. for a while now ( check the wikipedia Emissions trading page for examples ) .
I 'll gladly rail against any proposed legislation taxing citizens CO2 usage , but I read through these comments and I feel like I 've fallen into a forest of strawmen .
And it 's fine if you do n't RTFA , I mean this is /. , but at least RTFS .
The stated problem with the EU legislation is that the trade portion of the program was too generous in awarding credits and let pollution continue be cheaper than improving emissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't heard of any proposed legislation for taxing the CO2 emissions of citizens.
And successful cap and trade programs for other emissions have been in the U.S. for a while now(check the wikipedia Emissions trading page for examples).
I'll gladly rail against any proposed legislation taxing citizens CO2 usage, but I read through these comments and I feel like I've fallen into a forest of strawmen.
And it's fine if you don't RTFA, I mean this is /., but at least RTFS.
The stated problem with the EU legislation is that the trade portion of the program was too generous in awarding credits and let pollution continue be cheaper than improving emissions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551183</id>
	<title>Re:Put me in the "It won't work camp"</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1246448820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You aren't saving the environment by driving out business. The president cited California as an example of good energy policy. A lot of power consumed in California comes from neighboring states that don't have such strict regulations. The government of California is broke. They may not be able to make payroll next month. Is that where we want America to go? Is that our future model?</p></div></blockquote><p>Are you seriously attributing the budgetary woes of California solely to environmental regulations?<br> <br>Seriously?<br> <br>I think that you, as an employee of a company that is closing its doors, are an example of the perfect target of the corporatists who can construct an environmental bogeyman in order to get you on their side.<br> <br>I'm not trying to belittle you, honestly energy prices are a big issue in manufacturing.  But the cost of regulatory compliance is a small factor in the price of electricity -- far more influential is the issue of intentional undersupply of electricity by the deregulated power industry in order to strong-arm the government into increasing their profits by rolling back environmental regulations.  The power companies were profitable, and could build profitable plants under the regulations of this decade.  But they felt they could make *more* money if they strong-armed the government into rolling back the regulations.  So all California suffers from chronic undersupply, and resultant high prices, of electricity.<br> <br>It is not environmental regulations tha cost your company its livelihood.  It was the greed of other companies.<br> <br>Before I go off on a tangent, let me just write my main point: please do not allow yourself to be blinded by a single bogeyman put in front of you.  There are many reasons why California is having problems, and many reasons why companies fail.  Allowing yourself to believe it's as simple as environmental regulations is simple-minded.  And before you dismiss this out of hand, look at CA's healthcare costs.  Look at the healthcare costs of employers in CA.  Now look at the economic impact of poor air quality related illnesses, and the cost to the state (and to businesses) of paying all those medical bills.<br> <br>One other thing regarding environmental regulations.  Do you believe it is just for a society to allow companies to knowingly pollute in a manner that directly harms people, without that company being held accountable for it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't saving the environment by driving out business .
The president cited California as an example of good energy policy .
A lot of power consumed in California comes from neighboring states that do n't have such strict regulations .
The government of California is broke .
They may not be able to make payroll next month .
Is that where we want America to go ?
Is that our future model ? Are you seriously attributing the budgetary woes of California solely to environmental regulations ?
Seriously ? I think that you , as an employee of a company that is closing its doors , are an example of the perfect target of the corporatists who can construct an environmental bogeyman in order to get you on their side .
I 'm not trying to belittle you , honestly energy prices are a big issue in manufacturing .
But the cost of regulatory compliance is a small factor in the price of electricity -- far more influential is the issue of intentional undersupply of electricity by the deregulated power industry in order to strong-arm the government into increasing their profits by rolling back environmental regulations .
The power companies were profitable , and could build profitable plants under the regulations of this decade .
But they felt they could make * more * money if they strong-armed the government into rolling back the regulations .
So all California suffers from chronic undersupply , and resultant high prices , of electricity .
It is not environmental regulations tha cost your company its livelihood .
It was the greed of other companies .
Before I go off on a tangent , let me just write my main point : please do not allow yourself to be blinded by a single bogeyman put in front of you .
There are many reasons why California is having problems , and many reasons why companies fail .
Allowing yourself to believe it 's as simple as environmental regulations is simple-minded .
And before you dismiss this out of hand , look at CA 's healthcare costs .
Look at the healthcare costs of employers in CA .
Now look at the economic impact of poor air quality related illnesses , and the cost to the state ( and to businesses ) of paying all those medical bills .
One other thing regarding environmental regulations .
Do you believe it is just for a society to allow companies to knowingly pollute in a manner that directly harms people , without that company being held accountable for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't saving the environment by driving out business.
The president cited California as an example of good energy policy.
A lot of power consumed in California comes from neighboring states that don't have such strict regulations.
The government of California is broke.
They may not be able to make payroll next month.
Is that where we want America to go?
Is that our future model?Are you seriously attributing the budgetary woes of California solely to environmental regulations?
Seriously? I think that you, as an employee of a company that is closing its doors, are an example of the perfect target of the corporatists who can construct an environmental bogeyman in order to get you on their side.
I'm not trying to belittle you, honestly energy prices are a big issue in manufacturing.
But the cost of regulatory compliance is a small factor in the price of electricity -- far more influential is the issue of intentional undersupply of electricity by the deregulated power industry in order to strong-arm the government into increasing their profits by rolling back environmental regulations.
The power companies were profitable, and could build profitable plants under the regulations of this decade.
But they felt they could make *more* money if they strong-armed the government into rolling back the regulations.
So all California suffers from chronic undersupply, and resultant high prices, of electricity.
It is not environmental regulations tha cost your company its livelihood.
It was the greed of other companies.
Before I go off on a tangent, let me just write my main point: please do not allow yourself to be blinded by a single bogeyman put in front of you.
There are many reasons why California is having problems, and many reasons why companies fail.
Allowing yourself to believe it's as simple as environmental regulations is simple-minded.
And before you dismiss this out of hand, look at CA's healthcare costs.
Look at the healthcare costs of employers in CA.
Now look at the economic impact of poor air quality related illnesses, and the cost to the state (and to businesses) of paying all those medical bills.
One other thing regarding environmental regulations.
Do you believe it is just for a society to allow companies to knowingly pollute in a manner that directly harms people, without that company being held accountable for it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28555225</id>
	<title>Re:But... taxes actually work!</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1246528620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>One of the best ways to reduce pollution is to tax it. Reducing pollution costs money. The purpose of a corporation is to generate profit for shareholders. Given the choice, no corporation would reduce pollution instead of returning a higher dividend. So, for pollution to be reduced, government has to be involved somehow. There are two possible ways:</i></p></div> </blockquote><p> The flaw in your argument is that you are not considering the fact that similar enterprises have similar costs and when imposing a tax across the board on these costs, to protect profit, they can easily just pass the costs to the consumer. It's not like they have to compete with some company not paying the tax because the tax is supposed to bring the change around by punishing companies who have done nothing wrong.</p><p>In other words, there is no incentive or effect of the tax because no competition causes them to adsorb the costs of the tax.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Isn't this exactly what we all want? A market based solution to the problem, rather than overbearing government regulation?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p> But that isn't what's happening with a cap and trade law. We are getting both, overbearing government regulation which is forcing a market based system. It would be easier and less complex with proven results to just mandate switch overs to carbon neutral energy for future and eventually existing power generation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the best ways to reduce pollution is to tax it .
Reducing pollution costs money .
The purpose of a corporation is to generate profit for shareholders .
Given the choice , no corporation would reduce pollution instead of returning a higher dividend .
So , for pollution to be reduced , government has to be involved somehow .
There are two possible ways : The flaw in your argument is that you are not considering the fact that similar enterprises have similar costs and when imposing a tax across the board on these costs , to protect profit , they can easily just pass the costs to the consumer .
It 's not like they have to compete with some company not paying the tax because the tax is supposed to bring the change around by punishing companies who have done nothing wrong.In other words , there is no incentive or effect of the tax because no competition causes them to adsorb the costs of the tax .
Is n't this exactly what we all want ?
A market based solution to the problem , rather than overbearing government regulation ?
But that is n't what 's happening with a cap and trade law .
We are getting both , overbearing government regulation which is forcing a market based system .
It would be easier and less complex with proven results to just mandate switch overs to carbon neutral energy for future and eventually existing power generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> One of the best ways to reduce pollution is to tax it.
Reducing pollution costs money.
The purpose of a corporation is to generate profit for shareholders.
Given the choice, no corporation would reduce pollution instead of returning a higher dividend.
So, for pollution to be reduced, government has to be involved somehow.
There are two possible ways:  The flaw in your argument is that you are not considering the fact that similar enterprises have similar costs and when imposing a tax across the board on these costs, to protect profit, they can easily just pass the costs to the consumer.
It's not like they have to compete with some company not paying the tax because the tax is supposed to bring the change around by punishing companies who have done nothing wrong.In other words, there is no incentive or effect of the tax because no competition causes them to adsorb the costs of the tax.
Isn't this exactly what we all want?
A market based solution to the problem, rather than overbearing government regulation?
But that isn't what's happening with a cap and trade law.
We are getting both, overbearing government regulation which is forcing a market based system.
It would be easier and less complex with proven results to just mandate switch overs to carbon neutral energy for future and eventually existing power generation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550833</id>
	<title>What low carbon prices mean</title>
	<author>SiliconEntity</author>
	<datestamp>1246447140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was hoping to see some logic in this thread, but too bad. I've often seen this supposed failure of the EU carbon markets cited, without anyone ever pointing out the obvious implications.</p><p>So carbon emission permit prices were very low. What does that mean? It means there was little demand for carbon permits, right? Too much supply, too little demand. And why is that? It means that emitters were already able to meet their emission targets without using the permits much. It means there were plenty of permits available, more than were needed to meet the targets.</p><p>It all points to the same thing: the caps were high, so that it was easy to meet them.</p><p>That's not necessarily bad! You're phasing in the system, you don't want it to be too disruptive at first. So you will begin by setting caps generally easy to meet, and gradually tightening up. That's how government always does these things.</p><p>Then one thing that happened was that the world economy slowed. This caused production to decline, and therefore carbon output declined. This also reduced demand for the permits. Again, that's not bad! It means that the carbon emission targets were met without a great deal of pain, or at least, without adding extra pain to what was already going on due to the recession. It's a good thing that a cap and trade system has this kind of flexibility, that when the economy slows down, its bite decreases, and then if the economy overheats and starts growing rapidly, the permits will become much more expensive. It will tend to smooth out economic fluctuations.</p><p>The bottom line is that a cap and trade system allows the government to set the desired carbon emission level. How that level is met is up to the market. Markets are good at finding the least painful and expensive ways to meet resource constraints, and that is exactly what they have done. It often turns out that initial reductions in resources (whether oil inputs or carbon outputs) can be met surprisingly cheaply, because of the economic notion of marginal production. This is the least efficient and most expensive production which still barely makes economic sense to operate. As costs rise, it is the marginal production which is cut first, not the average production. It means that the production which is taken off-line is the production you cared about the least, the most inefficient and wasteful. It means you can reduce your costs without reducing your profits much. This probably goes a long way towards explaining why carbon prices ended up much lower than people predicted.</p><p>Keep in mind too that political opponents of these measures will have exaggerated the likely consequences and how painful the caps would be to deal with. They would have been the last people to explain the points I have made here about how much easier than expected it might turn out to be to meet the caps. This too can have led to unrealistic expectations for carbon market prices.</p><p>In the end, low carbon market prices are a great sign. It means that the carbon caps are holding, reductions in carbon are happening, without much negative impact on the economy. We should all hope that our U.S. markets encounter the same fortuitous outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was hoping to see some logic in this thread , but too bad .
I 've often seen this supposed failure of the EU carbon markets cited , without anyone ever pointing out the obvious implications.So carbon emission permit prices were very low .
What does that mean ?
It means there was little demand for carbon permits , right ?
Too much supply , too little demand .
And why is that ?
It means that emitters were already able to meet their emission targets without using the permits much .
It means there were plenty of permits available , more than were needed to meet the targets.It all points to the same thing : the caps were high , so that it was easy to meet them.That 's not necessarily bad !
You 're phasing in the system , you do n't want it to be too disruptive at first .
So you will begin by setting caps generally easy to meet , and gradually tightening up .
That 's how government always does these things.Then one thing that happened was that the world economy slowed .
This caused production to decline , and therefore carbon output declined .
This also reduced demand for the permits .
Again , that 's not bad !
It means that the carbon emission targets were met without a great deal of pain , or at least , without adding extra pain to what was already going on due to the recession .
It 's a good thing that a cap and trade system has this kind of flexibility , that when the economy slows down , its bite decreases , and then if the economy overheats and starts growing rapidly , the permits will become much more expensive .
It will tend to smooth out economic fluctuations.The bottom line is that a cap and trade system allows the government to set the desired carbon emission level .
How that level is met is up to the market .
Markets are good at finding the least painful and expensive ways to meet resource constraints , and that is exactly what they have done .
It often turns out that initial reductions in resources ( whether oil inputs or carbon outputs ) can be met surprisingly cheaply , because of the economic notion of marginal production .
This is the least efficient and most expensive production which still barely makes economic sense to operate .
As costs rise , it is the marginal production which is cut first , not the average production .
It means that the production which is taken off-line is the production you cared about the least , the most inefficient and wasteful .
It means you can reduce your costs without reducing your profits much .
This probably goes a long way towards explaining why carbon prices ended up much lower than people predicted.Keep in mind too that political opponents of these measures will have exaggerated the likely consequences and how painful the caps would be to deal with .
They would have been the last people to explain the points I have made here about how much easier than expected it might turn out to be to meet the caps .
This too can have led to unrealistic expectations for carbon market prices.In the end , low carbon market prices are a great sign .
It means that the carbon caps are holding , reductions in carbon are happening , without much negative impact on the economy .
We should all hope that our U.S. markets encounter the same fortuitous outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was hoping to see some logic in this thread, but too bad.
I've often seen this supposed failure of the EU carbon markets cited, without anyone ever pointing out the obvious implications.So carbon emission permit prices were very low.
What does that mean?
It means there was little demand for carbon permits, right?
Too much supply, too little demand.
And why is that?
It means that emitters were already able to meet their emission targets without using the permits much.
It means there were plenty of permits available, more than were needed to meet the targets.It all points to the same thing: the caps were high, so that it was easy to meet them.That's not necessarily bad!
You're phasing in the system, you don't want it to be too disruptive at first.
So you will begin by setting caps generally easy to meet, and gradually tightening up.
That's how government always does these things.Then one thing that happened was that the world economy slowed.
This caused production to decline, and therefore carbon output declined.
This also reduced demand for the permits.
Again, that's not bad!
It means that the carbon emission targets were met without a great deal of pain, or at least, without adding extra pain to what was already going on due to the recession.
It's a good thing that a cap and trade system has this kind of flexibility, that when the economy slows down, its bite decreases, and then if the economy overheats and starts growing rapidly, the permits will become much more expensive.
It will tend to smooth out economic fluctuations.The bottom line is that a cap and trade system allows the government to set the desired carbon emission level.
How that level is met is up to the market.
Markets are good at finding the least painful and expensive ways to meet resource constraints, and that is exactly what they have done.
It often turns out that initial reductions in resources (whether oil inputs or carbon outputs) can be met surprisingly cheaply, because of the economic notion of marginal production.
This is the least efficient and most expensive production which still barely makes economic sense to operate.
As costs rise, it is the marginal production which is cut first, not the average production.
It means that the production which is taken off-line is the production you cared about the least, the most inefficient and wasteful.
It means you can reduce your costs without reducing your profits much.
This probably goes a long way towards explaining why carbon prices ended up much lower than people predicted.Keep in mind too that political opponents of these measures will have exaggerated the likely consequences and how painful the caps would be to deal with.
They would have been the last people to explain the points I have made here about how much easier than expected it might turn out to be to meet the caps.
This too can have led to unrealistic expectations for carbon market prices.In the end, low carbon market prices are a great sign.
It means that the carbon caps are holding, reductions in carbon are happening, without much negative impact on the economy.
We should all hope that our U.S. markets encounter the same fortuitous outcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28581189</id>
	<title>Re:Success depends on the goal</title>
	<author>PastaLover</author>
	<datestamp>1246731660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the goal is 'saving the Earth' Europe's carbon tax isn't working very well.  But if the goal is raising taxes and growing government control then it is a success.</p></div><p>The problem with the cap and trade system is it presupposes an economy where we are above the cap. If however you're in, say, a global economic slowdown and you're not even going to come near the cap it's mostly ineffectual and, perversely, might actually be encouraging more inefficiency.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the goal is 'saving the Earth ' Europe 's carbon tax is n't working very well .
But if the goal is raising taxes and growing government control then it is a success.The problem with the cap and trade system is it presupposes an economy where we are above the cap .
If however you 're in , say , a global economic slowdown and you 're not even going to come near the cap it 's mostly ineffectual and , perversely , might actually be encouraging more inefficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the goal is 'saving the Earth' Europe's carbon tax isn't working very well.
But if the goal is raising taxes and growing government control then it is a success.The problem with the cap and trade system is it presupposes an economy where we are above the cap.
If however you're in, say, a global economic slowdown and you're not even going to come near the cap it's mostly ineffectual and, perversely, might actually be encouraging more inefficiency.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550263</id>
	<title>It has nothing to do with the environment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246444800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the real goal of all of this is to create a kind of green protectionism. We cannot compete with the likes of China but we can try and create legislation that will exclude them from the market for being heavy polluters. They won't have any choice but to buy expensive technology from us so that they can become cleaner. Hopefully, their costs will go up as well and therefore we will be more competitive.</p><p>Actually, I think this is a great idea. I think we should only trade with other countries that are democratic, have a clean human rights records, and are not heavy polluters. Everybody else should be kicked out of our market. Personally, I avoid any product made in China but it is really hard to do without nowadays depending on what you are looking for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the real goal of all of this is to create a kind of green protectionism .
We can not compete with the likes of China but we can try and create legislation that will exclude them from the market for being heavy polluters .
They wo n't have any choice but to buy expensive technology from us so that they can become cleaner .
Hopefully , their costs will go up as well and therefore we will be more competitive.Actually , I think this is a great idea .
I think we should only trade with other countries that are democratic , have a clean human rights records , and are not heavy polluters .
Everybody else should be kicked out of our market .
Personally , I avoid any product made in China but it is really hard to do without nowadays depending on what you are looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the real goal of all of this is to create a kind of green protectionism.
We cannot compete with the likes of China but we can try and create legislation that will exclude them from the market for being heavy polluters.
They won't have any choice but to buy expensive technology from us so that they can become cleaner.
Hopefully, their costs will go up as well and therefore we will be more competitive.Actually, I think this is a great idea.
I think we should only trade with other countries that are democratic, have a clean human rights records, and are not heavy polluters.
Everybody else should be kicked out of our market.
Personally, I avoid any product made in China but it is really hard to do without nowadays depending on what you are looking for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28555005</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1246525740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The solution would be to get the "new" technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation, not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this.</p></div><p>That will never happen - the new technologies are all more expensive than traditional ones, especially carbon fired powerplants. If the CO2 produced by traditional technologies would cause direct loss of capital to the producers of such energy, then of course, the "market would take care of it all", but that's not possible.</p><p>It's the same thing as with pollution: a factory that pollutes its environment with carcinogen metallic salts doesn't have any incentive to clean up that pollution or to not pollute, if just dumping the waste is cheaper. So the government must step in and make sure pollution COSTS real money to the factory.</p><p>Now, if you want to argue that CO2 is not causing any damage to humankind, then do that. But the discussion is based upon the assumption that CO2 is a harmful side-product which has to be curbed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution would be to get the " new " technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation , not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this.That will never happen - the new technologies are all more expensive than traditional ones , especially carbon fired powerplants .
If the CO2 produced by traditional technologies would cause direct loss of capital to the producers of such energy , then of course , the " market would take care of it all " , but that 's not possible.It 's the same thing as with pollution : a factory that pollutes its environment with carcinogen metallic salts does n't have any incentive to clean up that pollution or to not pollute , if just dumping the waste is cheaper .
So the government must step in and make sure pollution COSTS real money to the factory.Now , if you want to argue that CO2 is not causing any damage to humankind , then do that .
But the discussion is based upon the assumption that CO2 is a harmful side-product which has to be curbed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution would be to get the "new" technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation, not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this.That will never happen - the new technologies are all more expensive than traditional ones, especially carbon fired powerplants.
If the CO2 produced by traditional technologies would cause direct loss of capital to the producers of such energy, then of course, the "market would take care of it all", but that's not possible.It's the same thing as with pollution: a factory that pollutes its environment with carcinogen metallic salts doesn't have any incentive to clean up that pollution or to not pollute, if just dumping the waste is cheaper.
So the government must step in and make sure pollution COSTS real money to the factory.Now, if you want to argue that CO2 is not causing any damage to humankind, then do that.
But the discussion is based upon the assumption that CO2 is a harmful side-product which has to be curbed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549317</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1246441680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Natural systems don't care what our unemployment rate is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Natural systems do n't care what our unemployment rate is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Natural systems don't care what our unemployment rate is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550435</id>
	<title>US has a history of ignoring Europes history...</title>
	<author>Phizzle</author>
	<datestamp>1246445460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole Carbon Trading System is an amazingly blatant scam that is being sold as a feel-good medicine to alleviate our massively overdeveloped sense of guilt and self loathing, while in reality its is just another channel for enriching the regimes in charge along with their cronies, all at the expense of the already ass-raped taxpayers and the small amount of industry that somehow still survives while twitching in agony under the burden of regulation and abuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole Carbon Trading System is an amazingly blatant scam that is being sold as a feel-good medicine to alleviate our massively overdeveloped sense of guilt and self loathing , while in reality its is just another channel for enriching the regimes in charge along with their cronies , all at the expense of the already ass-raped taxpayers and the small amount of industry that somehow still survives while twitching in agony under the burden of regulation and abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole Carbon Trading System is an amazingly blatant scam that is being sold as a feel-good medicine to alleviate our massively overdeveloped sense of guilt and self loathing, while in reality its is just another channel for enriching the regimes in charge along with their cronies, all at the expense of the already ass-raped taxpayers and the small amount of industry that somehow still survives while twitching in agony under the burden of regulation and abuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554563</id>
	<title>fantasy land again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246477440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you mean well, and I sure like the sound of this  technology too, but there's a mighty big lack of functioning FBNR facilities around to prove your point convincingly, and most of them are so heavily subsidised as to make independent economic problematic.<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder\_reactor#Notable\_Breeder\_Reactors<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast\_breeder\_reactor#History<br>The science sounds great, but practice has had spotty results.<br>Blame the politicians all you like, but the economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_power\_debate#Economics) are still unproven.<br>And when those same politicians block the funds to properly decommission, then all our children will suffer the consequences - it's just a matter of time...<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning\_nuclear\_facilities#.28Lack\_of.29\_Decommissioning\_Funds</p><p>You've got to ask yourself, why can't a nuclear power plant get private insurance ?<br>Geothermal shows such excellent potential, but seems to be completely out of the limelight, probably cause a hole in the ground just doesn't look as cool as a thumping big power station belching who knows what into the atmosphere, or some whopping great spinning blades on the local hills. We all like our toys, even when we know they're not good for us...</p><p>There's no simple solution, no easy answer. FBNR sounds great in principle, but not so hot in practice. Just like communism, or pure market capitalism, so I hear<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you mean well , and I sure like the sound of this technology too , but there 's a mighty big lack of functioning FBNR facilities around to prove your point convincingly , and most of them are so heavily subsidised as to make independent economic problematic.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder \ _reactor # Notable \ _Breeder \ _Reactorshttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast \ _breeder \ _reactor # HistoryThe science sounds great , but practice has had spotty results.Blame the politicians all you like , but the economics ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear \ _power \ _debate # Economics ) are still unproven.And when those same politicians block the funds to properly decommission , then all our children will suffer the consequences - it 's just a matter of time...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning \ _nuclear \ _facilities # .28Lack \ _of.29 \ _Decommissioning \ _FundsYou 've got to ask yourself , why ca n't a nuclear power plant get private insurance ? Geothermal shows such excellent potential , but seems to be completely out of the limelight , probably cause a hole in the ground just does n't look as cool as a thumping big power station belching who knows what into the atmosphere , or some whopping great spinning blades on the local hills .
We all like our toys , even when we know they 're not good for us...There 's no simple solution , no easy answer .
FBNR sounds great in principle , but not so hot in practice .
Just like communism , or pure market capitalism , so I hear ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you mean well, and I sure like the sound of this  technology too, but there's a mighty big lack of functioning FBNR facilities around to prove your point convincingly, and most of them are so heavily subsidised as to make independent economic problematic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder\_reactor#Notable\_Breeder\_Reactorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast\_breeder\_reactor#HistoryThe science sounds great, but practice has had spotty results.Blame the politicians all you like, but the economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_power\_debate#Economics) are still unproven.And when those same politicians block the funds to properly decommission, then all our children will suffer the consequences - it's just a matter of time...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning\_nuclear\_facilities#.28Lack\_of.29\_Decommissioning\_FundsYou've got to ask yourself, why can't a nuclear power plant get private insurance ?Geothermal shows such excellent potential, but seems to be completely out of the limelight, probably cause a hole in the ground just doesn't look as cool as a thumping big power station belching who knows what into the atmosphere, or some whopping great spinning blades on the local hills.
We all like our toys, even when we know they're not good for us...There's no simple solution, no easy answer.
FBNR sounds great in principle, but not so hot in practice.
Just like communism, or pure market capitalism, so I hear ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552563</id>
	<title>Re:Wind/Solar Only?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246457100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, obviously nuclear isn't renewable, but you might like this excerpt from the act:</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>SEC. 199A. STUDY.</b></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Not later than February 1, 2011, the Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Congress a report showing the results of a study on the use of thorium-fueled nuclear reactors for national energy needs. Such report shall include a response to the International Atomic Energy Agency study entitled `Thorium fuel cycle - Potential benefits and challenges' (IAEA-TECDOC-1450).</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , obviously nuclear is n't renewable , but you might like this excerpt from the act : SEC .
199A. STUDY .
            Not later than February 1 , 2011 , the Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Congress a report showing the results of a study on the use of thorium-fueled nuclear reactors for national energy needs .
Such report shall include a response to the International Atomic Energy Agency study entitled ` Thorium fuel cycle - Potential benefits and challenges ' ( IAEA-TECDOC-1450 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, obviously nuclear isn't renewable, but you might like this excerpt from the act: SEC.
199A. STUDY.
            Not later than February 1, 2011, the Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Congress a report showing the results of a study on the use of thorium-fueled nuclear reactors for national energy needs.
Such report shall include a response to the International Atomic Energy Agency study entitled `Thorium fuel cycle - Potential benefits and challenges' (IAEA-TECDOC-1450).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548593</id>
	<title>First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246439580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did I get it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I get it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I get it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548979</id>
	<title>Flawed?</title>
	<author>psnyder</author>
	<datestamp>1246440720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Politicians grabbing at money via legislation that's difficult to monitor and enforce, so that companies will invest in technologies that are inefficient or don't exist yet?<br>How is this a flawed system?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Politicians grabbing at money via legislation that 's difficult to monitor and enforce , so that companies will invest in technologies that are inefficient or do n't exist yet ? How is this a flawed system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politicians grabbing at money via legislation that's difficult to monitor and enforce, so that companies will invest in technologies that are inefficient or don't exist yet?How is this a flawed system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28577929</id>
	<title>RE: Ponzi Scheme -- aka Carbon Credits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246645140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Answer -- Nothing.</p><p>Big Story.</p><p>Racist Christian God from Alaska, Sarah Palin,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. quits.</p><p>Looks like the Supreme A-Hole, is just a dumb-Fu*k.</p><p>The live "press conference" gave evidence of drug addiction, immorality, un-ethical, criminal behavior perpatrated by Her Magistry the Governer that the People of Alaska are all too knowledgable of her character, and sick of.</p><p>Burn the corpse and shoot the remaining Palin Brood!  Burn them all and associates -- i.e. Confederates.  Then douse the ashes with gasoline and burn them all again.</p><p>Oopsie<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there goes that bizzillion dollar Book deal!</p><p>Ta Ta.  Back to being the "Trailer Park Trash from Wasilla Palin" again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Answer -- Nothing.Big Story.Racist Christian God from Alaska , Sarah Palin , .. quits.Looks like the Supreme A-Hole , is just a dumb-Fu * k.The live " press conference " gave evidence of drug addiction , immorality , un-ethical , criminal behavior perpatrated by Her Magistry the Governer that the People of Alaska are all too knowledgable of her character , and sick of.Burn the corpse and shoot the remaining Palin Brood !
Burn them all and associates -- i.e .
Confederates. Then douse the ashes with gasoline and burn them all again.Oopsie ... there goes that bizzillion dollar Book deal ! Ta Ta .
Back to being the " Trailer Park Trash from Wasilla Palin " again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Answer -- Nothing.Big Story.Racist Christian God from Alaska, Sarah Palin, .. quits.Looks like the Supreme A-Hole, is just a dumb-Fu*k.The live "press conference" gave evidence of drug addiction, immorality, un-ethical, criminal behavior perpatrated by Her Magistry the Governer that the People of Alaska are all too knowledgable of her character, and sick of.Burn the corpse and shoot the remaining Palin Brood!
Burn them all and associates -- i.e.
Confederates.  Then douse the ashes with gasoline and burn them all again.Oopsie ... there goes that bizzillion dollar Book deal!Ta Ta.
Back to being the "Trailer Park Trash from Wasilla Palin" again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549487</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246442220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If the new technologies being talked about, worked on, etc. are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation, too bad.</i></p><p>Yea, because alternative energy sources can't compeat with coal they shouldn't get subsidies.  Only coal, and nuclear, should get subsidies.  Here's Chevron teeming with the Sierra Club to <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-15-chevron-lobby-sierra-club" title="grist.org">end coal subsidies</a> [grist.org].  And here's the freemarket CATO Institute reprinting a Forbes article saying Nuclear power is "<a href="http://www.cato.org/pub\_display.php?pub\_id=8792" title="cato.org">Hooked On Subsidies</a> [cato.org]".</p><p><i>The U.S. government is (and has been) in the hands of A) lunatics and B) people that couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it (the greatest majority of them, in any case).</i></p><p>Like the coal and nuclear industries, we even go to war over oil.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the new technologies being talked about , worked on , etc .
are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation , too bad.Yea , because alternative energy sources ca n't compeat with coal they should n't get subsidies .
Only coal , and nuclear , should get subsidies .
Here 's Chevron teeming with the Sierra Club to end coal subsidies [ grist.org ] .
And here 's the freemarket CATO Institute reprinting a Forbes article saying Nuclear power is " Hooked On Subsidies [ cato.org ] " .The U.S. government is ( and has been ) in the hands of A ) lunatics and B ) people that could n't run a business if their lives depended on it ( the greatest majority of them , in any case ) .Like the coal and nuclear industries , we even go to war over oil .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the new technologies being talked about, worked on, etc.
are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation, too bad.Yea, because alternative energy sources can't compeat with coal they shouldn't get subsidies.
Only coal, and nuclear, should get subsidies.
Here's Chevron teeming with the Sierra Club to end coal subsidies [grist.org].
And here's the freemarket CATO Institute reprinting a Forbes article saying Nuclear power is "Hooked On Subsidies [cato.org]".The U.S. government is (and has been) in the hands of A) lunatics and B) people that couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it (the greatest majority of them, in any case).Like the coal and nuclear industries, we even go to war over oil.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550373</id>
	<title>Re:Did I miss something?</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1246445280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue isn't citizens being taxed directly, it's that utilities and the like will pass the costs of cap and trade onto consumers. We will all be paying for it indirectly. In addition to that these companies may be forced to cut costs in other ways, and one of the simplest ways to do so is to eliminate employees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is n't citizens being taxed directly , it 's that utilities and the like will pass the costs of cap and trade onto consumers .
We will all be paying for it indirectly .
In addition to that these companies may be forced to cut costs in other ways , and one of the simplest ways to do so is to eliminate employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue isn't citizens being taxed directly, it's that utilities and the like will pass the costs of cap and trade onto consumers.
We will all be paying for it indirectly.
In addition to that these companies may be forced to cut costs in other ways, and one of the simplest ways to do so is to eliminate employees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550715</id>
	<title>Re:Wind/Solar Only?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1246446660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically because overcoming the political obstacles to promoting nuclear power would be an effort many times more difficult than the passage of this bill, so including nuclear power in the bill would mean it wouldn't get passed at all.</p><p>It's stupid from our pragmatist "just do the right thing" perspective, since nuclear fission is our best chance to get off fossil fuels in the near-ish term, but nevertheless completely understandable.  Between "ZOMG proliferation!" conservatives and "ZOMG nuclear waste(breeder huh?)!" liberals and "ZOMG NIMBY!" <i>everyone</i> it's going to be hard to find anyone who wants to fight that fight.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically because overcoming the political obstacles to promoting nuclear power would be an effort many times more difficult than the passage of this bill , so including nuclear power in the bill would mean it would n't get passed at all.It 's stupid from our pragmatist " just do the right thing " perspective , since nuclear fission is our best chance to get off fossil fuels in the near-ish term , but nevertheless completely understandable .
Between " ZOMG proliferation !
" conservatives and " ZOMG nuclear waste ( breeder huh ? ) !
" liberals and " ZOMG NIMBY !
" everyone it 's going to be hard to find anyone who wants to fight that fight .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically because overcoming the political obstacles to promoting nuclear power would be an effort many times more difficult than the passage of this bill, so including nuclear power in the bill would mean it wouldn't get passed at all.It's stupid from our pragmatist "just do the right thing" perspective, since nuclear fission is our best chance to get off fossil fuels in the near-ish term, but nevertheless completely understandable.
Between "ZOMG proliferation!
" conservatives and "ZOMG nuclear waste(breeder huh?)!
" liberals and "ZOMG NIMBY!
" everyone it's going to be hard to find anyone who wants to fight that fight.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550679</id>
	<title>Are carbon emissions from cars going to be taxed?</title>
	<author>SiliconEntity</author>
	<datestamp>1246446420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In all the thousands of words of discussion I have read on this issue, I haven't seen one mention of the question of whether gasoline use will be affected by the carbon caps. That seems strange.</p><p>"<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/clean\_vehicles/vehicle\_impacts/cars\_pickups\_and\_suvs/cars-and-trucks-and-global.html" title="ucsusa.org">Motor vehicles are responsible for almost a quarter of annual US emissions of carbon dioxide</a> [ucsusa.org]"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In all the thousands of words of discussion I have read on this issue , I have n't seen one mention of the question of whether gasoline use will be affected by the carbon caps .
That seems strange .
" Motor vehicles are responsible for almost a quarter of annual US emissions of carbon dioxide [ ucsusa.org ] "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all the thousands of words of discussion I have read on this issue, I haven't seen one mention of the question of whether gasoline use will be affected by the carbon caps.
That seems strange.
"Motor vehicles are responsible for almost a quarter of annual US emissions of carbon dioxide [ucsusa.org]"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549355</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246441800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let us revolt and kill the tyrants. You cast the first stone though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us revolt and kill the tyrants .
You cast the first stone though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us revolt and kill the tyrants.
You cast the first stone though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549083</id>
	<title>Only dealing with symptoms, not the problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246441020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is only dealing with the symptoms, just like any other environmental protection scheme.</p><p>There is only ONE environmental problem, which is the root cause for all other environmental issues. Solve that problem and all others will automatically disappear.<br>That problem is overpopulation. massive overpopulation.</p><p>Please go on ignoring the problem while jumping to the conclusion I want to kill 95\% of the population, probably applying some eugenics on the way, and mod me -1, Nazi .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is only dealing with the symptoms , just like any other environmental protection scheme.There is only ONE environmental problem , which is the root cause for all other environmental issues .
Solve that problem and all others will automatically disappear.That problem is overpopulation .
massive overpopulation.Please go on ignoring the problem while jumping to the conclusion I want to kill 95 \ % of the population , probably applying some eugenics on the way , and mod me -1 , Nazi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is only dealing with the symptoms, just like any other environmental protection scheme.There is only ONE environmental problem, which is the root cause for all other environmental issues.
Solve that problem and all others will automatically disappear.That problem is overpopulation.
massive overpopulation.Please go on ignoring the problem while jumping to the conclusion I want to kill 95\% of the population, probably applying some eugenics on the way, and mod me -1, Nazi .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548897</id>
	<title>Can someone please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246440540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone please explain why we're talking about charging companies more to do their work when we're already dealing with 10\% unemployment and signs that it will still take a while to fully recover?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please explain why we 're talking about charging companies more to do their work when we 're already dealing with 10 \ % unemployment and signs that it will still take a while to fully recover ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please explain why we're talking about charging companies more to do their work when we're already dealing with 10\% unemployment and signs that it will still take a while to fully recover?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552043</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>thogard</author>
	<datestamp>1246453440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its more like for every extra $1 they think they might get in the future they will spend $1.25 today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its more like for every extra $ 1 they think they might get in the future they will spend $ 1.25 today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its more like for every extra $1 they think they might get in the future they will spend $1.25 today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551601</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1246450860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anyone is really worried about spiking oil and gasoline prices you should be a lot more worried about the role speculators are playing in the commodities markets than any effect cap and trade will have.  Rolling Stone has an excellent <a href="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document\_id=16763183&amp;access\_key=key-aq99m8654zlwmm5muht&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode=" title="scribd.com">expos&#233;</a> [scribd.com] on the role Goldman Sachs in particular played in running oil prices up to $147 a barrel.  Its a must read if you want to understand how Wall Street screws the rest of us to take home their multimillion dollar pay checks.  This link is a scan, Rolling Stone doesn't have an online version.  It is Rolling Stone so isn't exactly a pillar in the financial news industry, though the pillars probably wont rat out Goldman, and they are rats.</p><p>The reason for the recent oil spikes really has nothing to do with supply and demand or cap and trade.  The real causes were:</p><p>A. Goldman Sachs and a dozen or so other big speculators got secret letters years ago exempting them from commodities regulations dating back to the 1930's which were designed to prevent speculators from driving up commodities prices.</p><p>B. Large amounts of money were fleeing the housing bubble bursh, and resulting stock market crash, also caused in large part by Goldman Sachs.  Goldman was packaging a lot of the toxic mortgages and then buying credit default swaps shorting their own mortgage bundles because they knew they were garbage. Most were with AIG so when the mortgage bundles turned to crap AIG went bankrupt, U.S. taxpayer gave them a $130 billion dollars and much of it wen out the back door in to Goldman's pocket (like $10 billion). Most of this was engineered by Paulson and the new head of AIG, both former Goldman Sachs executives.  It was... criminal.</p><p>C. Speculators poured in to oil and food futures with the help of entites like J Aron, Goldman's secretive commodity trader.  Oil futures traded hands 20-30 times and were inflated beyond all reason, there was and still is a glut of oil was being parked all over the globe.  They just moved the housing bubble to a commodities bubble.  This bubble caused the oil price spike and food price spikes that caused $4 gas in the U.S. and food riots and starvation in the third world.</p><p>Goldman Sachs has acquired such massive control over our government and financial system thanks to alumni like Paulson and Rubin. They have completely gutted financial regulation and turned all global markets in to rigged casinos where they always win and the rest of us always lose.  It appears Summers is the new White House insider protecting Goldman's interests.  Rubin in particular defeated every attempt to regulate credit default swaps.  Paulson as Goldman CEO talked the government in to removing caps on leverage that enabled the recent bubble.  A host of characters gutted regulation of the commodities market making commodity bubbles the new norm.</p><p>A British Lord and financial type recently testified in front of an EU commission.  His take was the big banks have managed to completely defang new attempts to regulate them in the wake of the recent crisis.  They often threatened to just move off shore if the regulations got too onerous.  He said they are RAPIDLY returning to business as usual prior to the recent collapse.  They are returning to obscene compensation levels which is why they rushed to pay back all the TARP money.  He predicted there will be another bubble and another major collapse in 10 to 15 years if it even takes that long.</p><p>Moral hazard is a critical element in a Capitalist system.  If you gamble big and lose you HAVE to know you will fail.  Since the U.S. and E.U. governments bailed out all the most of the gamblers and saved most of them from any consequences at all for their misdeeds they will just repeat the cycle. They will gamble, they will pocket big profits, and when the bubble bursts tax payers, workers and consumers the world over will get to pick up the tab for the losses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone is really worried about spiking oil and gasoline prices you should be a lot more worried about the role speculators are playing in the commodities markets than any effect cap and trade will have .
Rolling Stone has an excellent expos   [ scribd.com ] on the role Goldman Sachs in particular played in running oil prices up to $ 147 a barrel .
Its a must read if you want to understand how Wall Street screws the rest of us to take home their multimillion dollar pay checks .
This link is a scan , Rolling Stone does n't have an online version .
It is Rolling Stone so is n't exactly a pillar in the financial news industry , though the pillars probably wont rat out Goldman , and they are rats.The reason for the recent oil spikes really has nothing to do with supply and demand or cap and trade .
The real causes were : A. Goldman Sachs and a dozen or so other big speculators got secret letters years ago exempting them from commodities regulations dating back to the 1930 's which were designed to prevent speculators from driving up commodities prices.B .
Large amounts of money were fleeing the housing bubble bursh , and resulting stock market crash , also caused in large part by Goldman Sachs .
Goldman was packaging a lot of the toxic mortgages and then buying credit default swaps shorting their own mortgage bundles because they knew they were garbage .
Most were with AIG so when the mortgage bundles turned to crap AIG went bankrupt , U.S. taxpayer gave them a $ 130 billion dollars and much of it wen out the back door in to Goldman 's pocket ( like $ 10 billion ) .
Most of this was engineered by Paulson and the new head of AIG , both former Goldman Sachs executives .
It was... criminal.C. Speculators poured in to oil and food futures with the help of entites like J Aron , Goldman 's secretive commodity trader .
Oil futures traded hands 20-30 times and were inflated beyond all reason , there was and still is a glut of oil was being parked all over the globe .
They just moved the housing bubble to a commodities bubble .
This bubble caused the oil price spike and food price spikes that caused $ 4 gas in the U.S. and food riots and starvation in the third world.Goldman Sachs has acquired such massive control over our government and financial system thanks to alumni like Paulson and Rubin .
They have completely gutted financial regulation and turned all global markets in to rigged casinos where they always win and the rest of us always lose .
It appears Summers is the new White House insider protecting Goldman 's interests .
Rubin in particular defeated every attempt to regulate credit default swaps .
Paulson as Goldman CEO talked the government in to removing caps on leverage that enabled the recent bubble .
A host of characters gutted regulation of the commodities market making commodity bubbles the new norm.A British Lord and financial type recently testified in front of an EU commission .
His take was the big banks have managed to completely defang new attempts to regulate them in the wake of the recent crisis .
They often threatened to just move off shore if the regulations got too onerous .
He said they are RAPIDLY returning to business as usual prior to the recent collapse .
They are returning to obscene compensation levels which is why they rushed to pay back all the TARP money .
He predicted there will be another bubble and another major collapse in 10 to 15 years if it even takes that long.Moral hazard is a critical element in a Capitalist system .
If you gamble big and lose you HAVE to know you will fail .
Since the U.S. and E.U .
governments bailed out all the most of the gamblers and saved most of them from any consequences at all for their misdeeds they will just repeat the cycle .
They will gamble , they will pocket big profits , and when the bubble bursts tax payers , workers and consumers the world over will get to pick up the tab for the losses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone is really worried about spiking oil and gasoline prices you should be a lot more worried about the role speculators are playing in the commodities markets than any effect cap and trade will have.
Rolling Stone has an excellent exposé [scribd.com] on the role Goldman Sachs in particular played in running oil prices up to $147 a barrel.
Its a must read if you want to understand how Wall Street screws the rest of us to take home their multimillion dollar pay checks.
This link is a scan, Rolling Stone doesn't have an online version.
It is Rolling Stone so isn't exactly a pillar in the financial news industry, though the pillars probably wont rat out Goldman, and they are rats.The reason for the recent oil spikes really has nothing to do with supply and demand or cap and trade.
The real causes were:A. Goldman Sachs and a dozen or so other big speculators got secret letters years ago exempting them from commodities regulations dating back to the 1930's which were designed to prevent speculators from driving up commodities prices.B.
Large amounts of money were fleeing the housing bubble bursh, and resulting stock market crash, also caused in large part by Goldman Sachs.
Goldman was packaging a lot of the toxic mortgages and then buying credit default swaps shorting their own mortgage bundles because they knew they were garbage.
Most were with AIG so when the mortgage bundles turned to crap AIG went bankrupt, U.S. taxpayer gave them a $130 billion dollars and much of it wen out the back door in to Goldman's pocket (like $10 billion).
Most of this was engineered by Paulson and the new head of AIG, both former Goldman Sachs executives.
It was... criminal.C. Speculators poured in to oil and food futures with the help of entites like J Aron, Goldman's secretive commodity trader.
Oil futures traded hands 20-30 times and were inflated beyond all reason, there was and still is a glut of oil was being parked all over the globe.
They just moved the housing bubble to a commodities bubble.
This bubble caused the oil price spike and food price spikes that caused $4 gas in the U.S. and food riots and starvation in the third world.Goldman Sachs has acquired such massive control over our government and financial system thanks to alumni like Paulson and Rubin.
They have completely gutted financial regulation and turned all global markets in to rigged casinos where they always win and the rest of us always lose.
It appears Summers is the new White House insider protecting Goldman's interests.
Rubin in particular defeated every attempt to regulate credit default swaps.
Paulson as Goldman CEO talked the government in to removing caps on leverage that enabled the recent bubble.
A host of characters gutted regulation of the commodities market making commodity bubbles the new norm.A British Lord and financial type recently testified in front of an EU commission.
His take was the big banks have managed to completely defang new attempts to regulate them in the wake of the recent crisis.
They often threatened to just move off shore if the regulations got too onerous.
He said they are RAPIDLY returning to business as usual prior to the recent collapse.
They are returning to obscene compensation levels which is why they rushed to pay back all the TARP money.
He predicted there will be another bubble and another major collapse in 10 to 15 years if it even takes that long.Moral hazard is a critical element in a Capitalist system.
If you gamble big and lose you HAVE to know you will fail.
Since the U.S. and E.U.
governments bailed out all the most of the gamblers and saved most of them from any consequences at all for their misdeeds they will just repeat the cycle.
They will gamble, they will pocket big profits, and when the bubble bursts tax payers, workers and consumers the world over will get to pick up the tab for the losses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552341</id>
	<title>Re:Cap and Trade Issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246455300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no mechanism the government can employ to enforce the licenses. They could potentially fine the "overproduction" but that doesn't actually prevent the production of the CO2.</p></div><p>If the fine is large enough to cause the firm to become unprofitable, or even less profitable then if it used cleaner methods, it will certainly prevent production.  Money makes the word go round.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no mechanism the government can employ to enforce the licenses .
They could potentially fine the " overproduction " but that does n't actually prevent the production of the CO2.If the fine is large enough to cause the firm to become unprofitable , or even less profitable then if it used cleaner methods , it will certainly prevent production .
Money makes the word go round .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no mechanism the government can employ to enforce the licenses.
They could potentially fine the "overproduction" but that doesn't actually prevent the production of the CO2.If the fine is large enough to cause the firm to become unprofitable, or even less profitable then if it used cleaner methods, it will certainly prevent production.
Money makes the word go round.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28555495</id>
	<title>One thing they need to get right...</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1246532760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that energy companies are not able to do what they do in Germany. At the start of each year, they get the certificates for free and sell them all off. Later, they buy them back at a somewhat higher price.</p><p>They keep the profit from selling and use the 'cost' of rebuying to justify higher prices to the regulation agency.</p><p>As usual, politics is aware and does not care, the public is not, but would care a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that energy companies are not able to do what they do in Germany .
At the start of each year , they get the certificates for free and sell them all off .
Later , they buy them back at a somewhat higher price.They keep the profit from selling and use the 'cost ' of rebuying to justify higher prices to the regulation agency.As usual , politics is aware and does not care , the public is not , but would care a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that energy companies are not able to do what they do in Germany.
At the start of each year, they get the certificates for free and sell them all off.
Later, they buy them back at a somewhat higher price.They keep the profit from selling and use the 'cost' of rebuying to justify higher prices to the regulation agency.As usual, politics is aware and does not care, the public is not, but would care a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551647</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1246451100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government can't send you a 'check' unless they take the money from you first.</p></div><p>Sure they can.  It's called deficit spending.  They take it from your kids and give it to you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government ca n't send you a 'check ' unless they take the money from you first.Sure they can .
It 's called deficit spending .
They take it from your kids and give it to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government can't send you a 'check' unless they take the money from you first.Sure they can.
It's called deficit spending.
They take it from your kids and give it to you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551011</id>
	<title>Re:Wind/Solar Only?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I would venture a guess that nuclear power is NOT a renewable source of energy.  Renewable means that the fuel for a given source of energy will not "run out."  It has nothing to do with the "cleanliness" of the energy source or whether there is waste involved.  We will not run out of solar or wind energy (yeah yeah, except when the sun asplodes).  We WILL run out of fossil fuels and fissionable nuclear materials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I would venture a guess that nuclear power is NOT a renewable source of energy .
Renewable means that the fuel for a given source of energy will not " run out .
" It has nothing to do with the " cleanliness " of the energy source or whether there is waste involved .
We will not run out of solar or wind energy ( yeah yeah , except when the sun asplodes ) .
We WILL run out of fossil fuels and fissionable nuclear materials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I would venture a guess that nuclear power is NOT a renewable source of energy.
Renewable means that the fuel for a given source of energy will not "run out.
"  It has nothing to do with the "cleanliness" of the energy source or whether there is waste involved.
We will not run out of solar or wind energy (yeah yeah, except when the sun asplodes).
We WILL run out of fossil fuels and fissionable nuclear materials.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551587</id>
	<title>Re:The thing about a carbon tax...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246450800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about sticking to income tax. You know, where what you pay is directly linked to your income? You could argue that those on high incomes could afford to pay an "energy tax", but with income tax, they are already paying more than others (well, in sensible countries) and should have the same treatment as the lower paid.</p><p>Here in Ireland there is talk of means-testing certain benefits (free Uni tuition, child benefit payments). This is madness - it *costs* money to apply a means test (and it will invariably not be fair in some cases), and while you might save some money not providing benefits to higher earners - you can acheive the same effect by modifying their income tax rate. And if there is no scope for that, then there shouldn't be scope for reducing their benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about sticking to income tax .
You know , where what you pay is directly linked to your income ?
You could argue that those on high incomes could afford to pay an " energy tax " , but with income tax , they are already paying more than others ( well , in sensible countries ) and should have the same treatment as the lower paid.Here in Ireland there is talk of means-testing certain benefits ( free Uni tuition , child benefit payments ) .
This is madness - it * costs * money to apply a means test ( and it will invariably not be fair in some cases ) , and while you might save some money not providing benefits to higher earners - you can acheive the same effect by modifying their income tax rate .
And if there is no scope for that , then there should n't be scope for reducing their benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about sticking to income tax.
You know, where what you pay is directly linked to your income?
You could argue that those on high incomes could afford to pay an "energy tax", but with income tax, they are already paying more than others (well, in sensible countries) and should have the same treatment as the lower paid.Here in Ireland there is talk of means-testing certain benefits (free Uni tuition, child benefit payments).
This is madness - it *costs* money to apply a means test (and it will invariably not be fair in some cases), and while you might save some money not providing benefits to higher earners - you can acheive the same effect by modifying their income tax rate.
And if there is no scope for that, then there shouldn't be scope for reducing their benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550411</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is fascinating to see people up in arms about the ballooning US deficit (read: the tea parties) because they don't want to see the future generation burdened by this generation's spending spree, and at the same time argue against a Cap and Trade or any other carbon reduction program because that will increase their taxes now, nevermind what, if any, kind of planet we will be leaving behind for the future generations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is fascinating to see people up in arms about the ballooning US deficit ( read : the tea parties ) because they do n't want to see the future generation burdened by this generation 's spending spree , and at the same time argue against a Cap and Trade or any other carbon reduction program because that will increase their taxes now , nevermind what , if any , kind of planet we will be leaving behind for the future generations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is fascinating to see people up in arms about the ballooning US deficit (read: the tea parties) because they don't want to see the future generation burdened by this generation's spending spree, and at the same time argue against a Cap and Trade or any other carbon reduction program because that will increase their taxes now, nevermind what, if any, kind of planet we will be leaving behind for the future generations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548617</id>
	<title>That any government attempt to control...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246439640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a huge fraction of the economy will soon degenerate into a free-for-all of special interest group favoritism, graft, corruption, and kickbacks?</p><p>Of course, Obama and Congress know all that. That's why they're doing it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a huge fraction of the economy will soon degenerate into a free-for-all of special interest group favoritism , graft , corruption , and kickbacks ? Of course , Obama and Congress know all that .
That 's why they 're doing it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a huge fraction of the economy will soon degenerate into a free-for-all of special interest group favoritism, graft, corruption, and kickbacks?Of course, Obama and Congress know all that.
That's why they're doing it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549169</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246441260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all the US uses a fucking big lot of natural resources available right now. And why WOULD you use less if you can't care less?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all the US uses a fucking big lot of natural resources available right now .
And why WOULD you use less if you ca n't care less ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all the US uses a fucking big lot of natural resources available right now.
And why WOULD you use less if you can't care less?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548711</id>
	<title>Like your Dad used to say.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246439940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything worth doing is worth doing right!</p><p>I think it stands to reason that in order to promote change in industries entrenched in Massive fossil fuel consumption, you have to dangle either a very big and delicious carrot, or have one hell of a punishment system for excessive use of said fuels.</p><p>The punishment route would have to be ridiculous in order to be effective, and I would think any kind of Carbon credit system would have to offer enough appeal to make the cost of trading in Carbon credits relevant to the cost associated with finding alternate fuel sources, which I think is a task in and of itself, thus the article mentioned above, the EU seems to have failed at it, and if we start it off wrong, we'll be in the same boat they're in, which is an "Epic Fail" and will be very hard to re-vamp in order to make it more palatable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything worth doing is worth doing right ! I think it stands to reason that in order to promote change in industries entrenched in Massive fossil fuel consumption , you have to dangle either a very big and delicious carrot , or have one hell of a punishment system for excessive use of said fuels.The punishment route would have to be ridiculous in order to be effective , and I would think any kind of Carbon credit system would have to offer enough appeal to make the cost of trading in Carbon credits relevant to the cost associated with finding alternate fuel sources , which I think is a task in and of itself , thus the article mentioned above , the EU seems to have failed at it , and if we start it off wrong , we 'll be in the same boat they 're in , which is an " Epic Fail " and will be very hard to re-vamp in order to make it more palatable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything worth doing is worth doing right!I think it stands to reason that in order to promote change in industries entrenched in Massive fossil fuel consumption, you have to dangle either a very big and delicious carrot, or have one hell of a punishment system for excessive use of said fuels.The punishment route would have to be ridiculous in order to be effective, and I would think any kind of Carbon credit system would have to offer enough appeal to make the cost of trading in Carbon credits relevant to the cost associated with finding alternate fuel sources, which I think is a task in and of itself, thus the article mentioned above, the EU seems to have failed at it, and if we start it off wrong, we'll be in the same boat they're in, which is an "Epic Fail" and will be very hard to re-vamp in order to make it more palatable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549795</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246443120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>no we don't have one.  the reason why it's been defeated every time is that the proponents of the bill (typically California, Washington, Arizona, Nevada) receive a large portion of their power from hydroelectric power. So they have renewable sources available. Essentially this is a tax on the breadbasket states who have less clean resources available to them, and who's economies are based more on industry then the states on the coasts. It's been proposed several times, and several times defeated. Cap and trade makes sense if alternatives are more evenly distributed, but unfortunately they're not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no we do n't have one .
the reason why it 's been defeated every time is that the proponents of the bill ( typically California , Washington , Arizona , Nevada ) receive a large portion of their power from hydroelectric power .
So they have renewable sources available .
Essentially this is a tax on the breadbasket states who have less clean resources available to them , and who 's economies are based more on industry then the states on the coasts .
It 's been proposed several times , and several times defeated .
Cap and trade makes sense if alternatives are more evenly distributed , but unfortunately they 're not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no we don't have one.
the reason why it's been defeated every time is that the proponents of the bill (typically California, Washington, Arizona, Nevada) receive a large portion of their power from hydroelectric power.
So they have renewable sources available.
Essentially this is a tax on the breadbasket states who have less clean resources available to them, and who's economies are based more on industry then the states on the coasts.
It's been proposed several times, and several times defeated.
Cap and trade makes sense if alternatives are more evenly distributed, but unfortunately they're not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847</id>
	<title>Success depends on the goal</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1246440360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the goal is 'saving the Earth' Europe's carbon tax isn't working very well.  But if the goal is raising taxes and growing government control then it is a success.</p><p>So it should come as no surprise that the US is eager to emulate the success of Europe's 'cap and trade' regime.  The green movement is basically a watermelon, enviro green on the outside and red communist inside.  The green movement was subverted and taken over back in the Soviet days when almost every group that didn't take overt efforts at resisting such a takeover was borged and used as a front.</p><p>But to their credit even Greenpeace was against the atrocity the House just passed.  Because they still have enough true believers in environmentalism left that understand what the cap and trade plan moving through Congress really is. Any benefit to the environment will be a happy accident.  They give away almost all of the credits in the short and medium term to political allies to allow them to pollute all they want.  The point is to slowly gain CONTROL over vast swaths of the American economy.</p><p>If we really want to control carbon emissions a huge new government structure that will always throw 'free credits' out anytime there is real pain (i.e. enraged ratepayers, a plant about to close, a huge sack of campaign cash offered, etc.) so there won't be much real reduction.</p><p>No, just put a straight TAX on energy sources that you want to discourage.  Personally I'm not a believer in AGW but I could get behind such an effort on the grounds of reducing our dependence on oil form countries that want us dead.  But I can't support cap and trade because a) it won't work and b) is a solution worse than the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the goal is 'saving the Earth ' Europe 's carbon tax is n't working very well .
But if the goal is raising taxes and growing government control then it is a success.So it should come as no surprise that the US is eager to emulate the success of Europe 's 'cap and trade ' regime .
The green movement is basically a watermelon , enviro green on the outside and red communist inside .
The green movement was subverted and taken over back in the Soviet days when almost every group that did n't take overt efforts at resisting such a takeover was borged and used as a front.But to their credit even Greenpeace was against the atrocity the House just passed .
Because they still have enough true believers in environmentalism left that understand what the cap and trade plan moving through Congress really is .
Any benefit to the environment will be a happy accident .
They give away almost all of the credits in the short and medium term to political allies to allow them to pollute all they want .
The point is to slowly gain CONTROL over vast swaths of the American economy.If we really want to control carbon emissions a huge new government structure that will always throw 'free credits ' out anytime there is real pain ( i.e .
enraged ratepayers , a plant about to close , a huge sack of campaign cash offered , etc .
) so there wo n't be much real reduction.No , just put a straight TAX on energy sources that you want to discourage .
Personally I 'm not a believer in AGW but I could get behind such an effort on the grounds of reducing our dependence on oil form countries that want us dead .
But I ca n't support cap and trade because a ) it wo n't work and b ) is a solution worse than the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the goal is 'saving the Earth' Europe's carbon tax isn't working very well.
But if the goal is raising taxes and growing government control then it is a success.So it should come as no surprise that the US is eager to emulate the success of Europe's 'cap and trade' regime.
The green movement is basically a watermelon, enviro green on the outside and red communist inside.
The green movement was subverted and taken over back in the Soviet days when almost every group that didn't take overt efforts at resisting such a takeover was borged and used as a front.But to their credit even Greenpeace was against the atrocity the House just passed.
Because they still have enough true believers in environmentalism left that understand what the cap and trade plan moving through Congress really is.
Any benefit to the environment will be a happy accident.
They give away almost all of the credits in the short and medium term to political allies to allow them to pollute all they want.
The point is to slowly gain CONTROL over vast swaths of the American economy.If we really want to control carbon emissions a huge new government structure that will always throw 'free credits' out anytime there is real pain (i.e.
enraged ratepayers, a plant about to close, a huge sack of campaign cash offered, etc.
) so there won't be much real reduction.No, just put a straight TAX on energy sources that you want to discourage.
Personally I'm not a believer in AGW but I could get behind such an effort on the grounds of reducing our dependence on oil form countries that want us dead.
But I can't support cap and trade because a) it won't work and b) is a solution worse than the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28556777</id>
	<title>Excuse for a tax (Obama's Global Domination)</title>
	<author>elkto</author>
	<datestamp>1246545060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jeez, the mantra continues.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.climate4you.com/images/EQUATOR\%202008\%2008\%20vs\%201998-2006.gif" title="climate4you.com" rel="nofollow">Last year the earth cooled ALLOT </a> [climate4you.com] <br>
<a href="http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp183/kiwistonewall/2009x.jpg" title="photobucket.com" rel="nofollow">Arctic sea ice has been GROWING</a> [photobucket.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse\_data.html" title="geocraft.com" rel="nofollow">The Green house gas argument is a number scam. (Ponzi anybody?)</a> [geocraft.com]<br>
<a href="http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9\%20CCMSC.pdf" title="nasaprs.com" rel="nofollow">And unless we get allot more sunspots soon, we be PRAYING for a little global warming.</a> [nasaprs.com] <br> <br>On top of all that, the psuedo scientist out there call people that present these FACTS "Flat Earth'ers".<br> <br>Wake up people, you are being taken for a ride.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeez , the mantra continues .
Last year the earth cooled ALLOT [ climate4you.com ] Arctic sea ice has been GROWING [ photobucket.com ] The Green house gas argument is a number scam .
( Ponzi anybody ?
) [ geocraft.com ] And unless we get allot more sunspots soon , we be PRAYING for a little global warming .
[ nasaprs.com ] On top of all that , the psuedo scientist out there call people that present these FACTS " Flat Earth'ers " .
Wake up people , you are being taken for a ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeez, the mantra continues.
Last year the earth cooled ALLOT  [climate4you.com] 
Arctic sea ice has been GROWING [photobucket.com] 
The Green house gas argument is a number scam.
(Ponzi anybody?
) [geocraft.com]
And unless we get allot more sunspots soon, we be PRAYING for a little global warming.
[nasaprs.com]  On top of all that, the psuedo scientist out there call people that present these FACTS "Flat Earth'ers".
Wake up people, you are being taken for a ride.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554815</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>laddiebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1246566840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it! In case you've failed to notice, very few businesses that have run for over two hundred years have not failed, and the US definitely fits that category. In fact, the US has historically been extremely shrewd at furthering its interests -- and the proof is all around us, in its success.<br> <br>

By the way, you say you're all for cleaner and greener, then in the very next sentence you say you're against greater tax burderns. Do you think that the solutions to energy efficiency are going to turn up through private research? That may have been true a hundred years ago, but not any more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't run a business if their lives depended on it !
In case you 've failed to notice , very few businesses that have run for over two hundred years have not failed , and the US definitely fits that category .
In fact , the US has historically been extremely shrewd at furthering its interests -- and the proof is all around us , in its success .
By the way , you say you 're all for cleaner and greener , then in the very next sentence you say you 're against greater tax burderns .
Do you think that the solutions to energy efficiency are going to turn up through private research ?
That may have been true a hundred years ago , but not any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it!
In case you've failed to notice, very few businesses that have run for over two hundred years have not failed, and the US definitely fits that category.
In fact, the US has historically been extremely shrewd at furthering its interests -- and the proof is all around us, in its success.
By the way, you say you're all for cleaner and greener, then in the very next sentence you say you're against greater tax burderns.
Do you think that the solutions to energy efficiency are going to turn up through private research?
That may have been true a hundred years ago, but not any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549377</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, funny that.</title>
	<author>georgenh16</author>
	<datestamp>1246441860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The solution would be to get the "new" technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation, not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this.</p></div><p>
I wish I had mod points. Why is this so hard to understand? Tax free R&amp;D for green tech is the way to go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution would be to get the " new " technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation , not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this .
I wish I had mod points .
Why is this so hard to understand ?
Tax free R&amp;D for green tech is the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution would be to get the "new" technologies to produce energy at or below the cost of current energy generation, not taxing everyone in oblivion to artificially do this.
I wish I had mod points.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Tax free R&amp;D for green tech is the way to go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28658433</id>
	<title>Re:Success depends on the goal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247303880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does is matter if Greenpeace is for or against this?  They are a bunch of enviro-nutcases.  When you are against anything that might just possibly be bad for the environment you are bound to be right some of the time and wrong some of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does is matter if Greenpeace is for or against this ?
They are a bunch of enviro-nutcases .
When you are against anything that might just possibly be bad for the environment you are bound to be right some of the time and wrong some of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does is matter if Greenpeace is for or against this?
They are a bunch of enviro-nutcases.
When you are against anything that might just possibly be bad for the environment you are bound to be right some of the time and wrong some of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28581189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28553427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28555005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28658433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28556751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28555225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28553513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1959239_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28553427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28555005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28555225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28556777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549847
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551647
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550919
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551587
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554795
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550691
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28553513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28581189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28658433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28549795
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552707
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28556751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1959239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28548915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28552563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28551011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28550715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1959239.28554075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
