However, your solution (and Obama’s) to the energy crisis is to do NOTHING except make it more expensive. My solution is to find new energy sources and provide an energy infrastructure to support it.

Report comment to moderator

Oh, that is a bummer, isn’t it?

Evidently the problem is that the text of the bill is the result of search, and so the search term URL disappears after a short period of time (I know, TMI)

So here is the link to Thomas. HB 2454 is highlighted at the top. When you click on it, go to “Text of Bill” then select version 3., the bill as passed. You can then scroll through to the Disposition of Allowances and the (missing) `SEC. 788. SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY INCENTIVES PROGRAMS.

As to your question about raising costs:
The broad theory is that our use of energy is under-priced, relative to the damage done. The difficulty is that these emissions create broad, generalized harms (externalities) — over which no one producer of pollution has a particular interest in reducing.

to put it another way, our short term and our long term interests are out of sync. In that case, we can opt for one of three approaches: do nothing — push the decision down the road to some other generation; move to a directive economy; or find some sort of distributed control mechanism. There’s a lot of sense to this last one; a similar program aimed SO2 production, substantially cut acid rain in the Northeast. Market systems can work.

Last, of course you can say “do nothing” but that only postpones your decision process. At some point the social and environmental costs will become to great to tolerate — that is why there is a great deal of wisdom in acting sooner rather than later, for all the usual reasons (cheaper, more considered — not in haste, etc).

Report comment to moderator

First the liberals on this site defended passing bills without reading them. Now they’re defending passing bills without them even being written…

Well heck then. Lets just vote for peace on earth. It’s a good intention eh? That’s all it takes right?

I can’t watch this crap anymore.

Report comment to moderator

This bill does one thing and one thing only: it raises energy costs. Can you please explain how that solves anything?

Report comment to moderator

You can’t be serious!

Ah NJL, I am.

The difficulty with political derangement is that allows for now discrimination. Makes no difference if it’s Bush or Obama (or Clinton or Palin), when one suffers from the syndrome, the assertion is enough.

The proof of Malkin’s derangement is that once the text comes out, her fears for this bill are unfounded. The word from Rep. Frank that “a good system will be in place” is in fact, proven out. If I say I doubt you, but then the results show you were right, what ought we conclude about my opinion? And what ought we think when I make another opinion?

Report comment to moderator

You can’t be serious!

Report comment to moderator

But even so, Thomas does provide an actual text. Here. There’s the transparency response.

So I’m scratching my head. What does seem to be the case is a massive case of the assumption of bad faith. But how is that warranted? In particular in looking at the actual substance of the section (it deals with Agriculture)?

Report comment to moderator

That pretty much says it for me.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Legislation has become just an empty formality. Obama can simply enact and spend whatever he wants regardless of the cost. Having no checks and balances even from the media, the soft fascism of social progressives advances rapidly.

Report comment to moderator