Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's cap-and-trade without a mandatory cap?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Ramo
    And my post was a response that "explanation." Again, the EU system is exactly the sort of cap and trade system with a hard cap across the economy, and a soft cap on a specific entity.
    He's saying he doesn't support "mandatory caps" but does support "cap and trade". Presumably by "mandatory caps" he is referring to hard caps on specific entities, and by "cap and trade" referring to soft caps on individual entities.

    At worst it seems he was confused about what "mandatory caps" was referring to in the question. Which isn't a big deal, miscommunication happens all the time. McCain's proposal is either worthwhile or it isn't, and that should be what people focus on.

    Comment


    • #17
      Mandatory cap is conveniently defined in this question by the system that the EU operates by. Which is a cap and trade system. It's also defined as a singular quantity ("mandatory cap"), as opposed to a specific quantity for many individual entities (which would be "mandatory caps"). More importantly a "soft cap" is certainly a cap that is mandated by the government (i.e. a mandatory cap).

      But I suppose that it's possible that McCain only uses bizarre and confusing language to talk about his climate change agenda, as opposed to being genuinely confused about the content...
      "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
      -Bokonon

      Comment


      • #18
        Probably something along the lines of tax breaks for businesses that fall under the standard, which is a far superior system to a mandatory cap and trade.
        Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
        "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
        2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

        Comment


        • #19
          McCain's proposal is either worthwhile or it isn'
          It isn't. It sets very conservative targets (more appropriate for the situation several years ago), and doesn't auction the carbon credits (instead would hand them out).
          "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
          -Bokonon

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Ramo
            But I suppose that it's possible that McCain only uses bizarre and confusing language to talk about his climate change agenda, as opposed to being genuinely confused about the content...
            It's not bizarre. It may be confusing to you, but to me it seems rather easy to understand what he is getting at.

            At worst he just didn't understand what was meant by "mandatory cap(s)" in the question(s). He at least seems to be consistent in how he addresses "mandatory cap(s)".

            Personally if someone asked me what "mandatory caps" were, I'd say they were hard caps, since if the cap is soft, it isn't a specific mandatory cap value, which "mandatory cap" without qualification tends to suggest. Other people would read it differently, which is why in the end what matters is the actual implementation, not some nebulously worded moniker for it.

            Mandatory cap is conveniently defined in this question by the system that the EU operates by.
            Actually, the question dealing with the EU didn't use the term "cap" at all. It used "targets". (Note the "s" as well.) Perhaps that was a source of confusion as well.

            Not so easy being semantically correct, now is it? And here you get to type it out, look up definitions and references, edit it, and all that jazz. This ridiculous fixation on semantic mistakes in our political system only serves to make sure we end up with talking heads reading teleprompters, and avoidance of real issues by both candidates and voters.

            It's also defined as a singular quantity ("mandatory cap"), as opposed to a specific quantity for many individual entities (which would be "mandatory caps").
            "Senator McCain, you are in favor of mandatory caps." - Russert

            "It's not quote mandatory caps." - McCain

            I don't think the singular/plural thing has any real impact, as the question is asked with and without the "s", without even the cap part (targets) and answered with and without the "s" as well. But they are presumably all talking about the same thing. (Or assuming they are.)

            Besides, a mandatory cap can refer to a type of cap, which is singular, even if the the cap would be applied in many instances. Simply saying "mandatory cap" instead of "mandatory caps" does not mean the cap must be economy-wide rather than entity specific.

            It isn't. It sets very conservative targets (more appropriate for the situation several years ago), and doesn't auction the carbon credits (instead would hand them out).
            See, it's not so hard to actually deal with the issue, now is it?

            Comment


            • #21

              Actually, the question dealing with the EU didn't use the term "cap" at all. It used "targets". (Note the "s" as well.)
              That's completely beside the point. Again, the EU certainly does not have "hard caps" by your definition. That's what makes your interpretation of McCain bizarre and confusing.
              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
              -Bokonon

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Ramo
                That's completely beside the point.
                It's not beside the point because you are making a semantic argument against McCain, while making semantic mistakes yourself. You feign surprise at McCain's mistake, yet make similar mistakes yourself. (Even though you have much greater means at your disposal to ensure a mistake isn't made in this forum than he does in a live question and answer.)

                That's what makes your interpretation of McCain bizarre and confusing.
                My interpretation is not bizarre unless you live in a world where no mistakes are ever made.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Mistakes are only okay when they're made by Democrats, Aeson. Didn't you get the memo?

                  <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                  I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    It's not beside the point because you are making a semantic argument against McCain, while making semantic mistakes yourself. You feign surprise at McCain's mistake, yet make similar mistakes yourself. (Even though you have much greater means at your disposal to ensure a mistake isn't made in this forum than he does in a live question and answer.)
                    Except my argument was about how "mandate" was being defined, not whether one used the word "cap" or "target." Specifically, mandate was defined by the questioner as a global (system-wide, not Earth-wide) constraint given the association with the EU's global cap. Equating a "mandate" with a local constraint would be an assumption that has not been substantiated. Again, that is why your interpretation of McCain is bizarre.
                    "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                    -Bokonon

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      You really don't understand what a mistake is do you? How bizarre.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X