Who are American politicians beholden to? The People? The Constitution?

[regexcellent]

Man, I would love to vote for a Democrat, if only they were Democrats like Harry F. Byrd Jr. who were against taxing and spending. If only there were Democrats who were pro-gun, anti-union, pro-business, anti-tax, anti-universal health care, and anti-abortion I would vote for them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The concept of cap and trade being a GOP idea suffers from a couple of problems. One it wasn't an idea that was suggested for the case of CO2.

Actually, a market based global CO2 cap and trade system was in early development by Cantor Fitzgerald in 2001. Of the group involved in one way or another in the project, all but three were killed on 9/11.

While it is true the clean air act mechanisms for emissions trading was a concept inspired by free market proponents (i.e. GOP) the emissions reductions were along the lines of pollutants namely NOx and SOx that the large generators had some measure of control. With Most Achievable Control Technologies (MACT), emitters could scrub stack emissions and thereby bank savings of emissions from baseline emissions. These credits in turn could then be sold to other industries that were looking to increase their productions. Thus it encouraged industries to implement MACT where possible. (A carrot approach as opposed to the hard left authoritarian approach of you 'vill comply with the regulations.)

While it's true that there is no MACT for CO2, there are some extraction processes for removing it from stack gasses and cleaning it to industrial or beverage grade standards. I've worked on two biomass generation projects using the technology, one to inject CO2 into greenhouses to stimulate growth, and the other for beverage extraction. Other approaches include offsetting mitigation, eg carbon banking. The Nez Perce have been actively doing carbon sequestration forest management for years. The White Mountain Apache, who have half a million acres of pristine forest are considering looking for it. A final route is for businesses which are going to shut down anyway, or do major equipment changes, can monetize their emissions limits by surrendering their operating permits. So there are different market mechanisms for carbon trading, but you're correct that there are better purely technological solutions for pollutants such as SOx, NOx, VOCs, etc.

In the case of CO2 emissions no MACT exists to any appreciable extent that removes CO2 except to reduce economic activity. There are no magic bullets of stack scrubbers, no MACT available, other than to reduce use of combustion as sources of energy.

No one in there right mind supported cap and trade because it did not have the technological underpinnings that could allow it to succeed. In the case of NOx and SOx the technologies were mature and proven and it was much more easily achievable for SOx and NOx emitters without having to reduce their outputs.[/QUOTE]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

While it's true that there is no MACT for CO2, there are some extraction processes for removing it from stack gasses and cleaning it to industrial or beverage grade standards. I've worked on two biomass generation projects using the technology, one to inject CO2 into greenhouses to stimulate growth, and the other for beverage extraction. Other approaches include offsetting mitigation, eg carbon banking. The Nez Perce have been actively doing carbon sequestration forest management for years. The White Mountain Apache, who have half a million acres of pristine forest are considering looking for it. A final route is for businesses which are going to shut down anyway, or do major equipment changes, can monetize their emissions limits by surrendering their operating permits. So there are different market mechanisms for carbon trading, but you're correct that there are better purely technological solutions for pollutants such as SOx, NOx, VOCs, etc.

Interesting (any scale testing completed?), and in the same vein since that time frame the incorporation of CO2 injection into the earth to aid in Nat gas fracking allows for an offset of CO2 generation via combustion (and perhaps even a CO2 sequestration credit). But at the time frame in question when CO2 cap and trade was being considered and proposed these technologies were too premature to be considered a given.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Are we back to you claiming that your population is a bunch of non-producing moochers? Because there is some evidence that you are a welfare magnet, I will admit.

The largest state GDP by far, 12th highest GDP per capital and largest population say otherwise as far as non-producing moochers. CA welfare rolls are inflated by migration from other states. It's not "our" population, it's a bunch of carpetbaggers freeloading off our production.

I see no need to factor anything out wrt that rate other than seasonal adjustments when judging the health of a State economy.

California is primarily an industrial/financial/services economy. Ag in the central valley and imperial valley has been a sea anchor on the California economy for decades. The key portions of California's economy do not reflect significantly higher unemployment than other states. The relatively small ag sector (some ag dominated counties have 20+% unemployment) are skewing the overall numbers.

I'm not the one making ludicrous statements that MS is some sort of economic powerhouse. However if you must know we are judged to be much more credit worthy than California.

You keep your shotgun shacks and state creditworthiness, and I'll keep the ocean view.

Unlike Greece, you lack the ability to print money and already have one of the highest tax levels in the US. Perhaps you could tell me the value of racking up a higher and higher debt load while pretending it doesn't exist?

If anyone was actually doing that, I'd let you know. Meanwhile, it's like a driver of an AMC Gremlin pointing out to a driver of a Ferrari that the Ferrari needs a tuneup because it can only go 90 mph faster than the Gremlin, instead of the normal 120.

[Imran Siddiqui]

lol I missed what you were referencing. My bad.

It is all too rare for folks on this site to admit that they read something incorrectly or misinterpreted something (they usually charge full into it). So I want to give some props for this.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Actually, a market based global CO2 cap and trade system was in early development by Cantor Fitzgerald in 2001. Of the group involved in one way or another in the project, all but three were killed on 9/11.

And before that Enron. They already had a fledgling SOx NOx trade underway when my wife was interviewing back circa 1996 and had intended to proceed with CO2 trading as well. The idea had a lot of favor for the tradery types but not the operational folk.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Interesting (any scale testing completed?), and in the same vein since that time frame the incorporation of CO2 injection into the earth to aid in Nat gas fracking allows for an offset of CO2 generation via combustion (and perhaps even a CO2 sequestration credit). But at the time frame in question when CO2 cap and trade was being considered and proposed these technologies were too premature to be considered a given.

I know of two (can't remember the locations, but have data on them buried away somewhere), one is a total 500 ton per day CO2 with three lines, the other is 350 ton per day. The technology isn't an issue so much as the market for the CO2. AirLiquide was the customer for both projects. One of the projects I work on every so often (stalled in financing a couple of times) was in discussion with Pepsi and they were keenly interested.

[MichaeltheGreat]

And before that Enron. They already had a fledgling SOx NOx trade underway when my wife was interviewing back circa 1996 and had intended to proceed with CO2 trading as well. The idea had a lot of favor for the tradery types but not the operational folk.

Enron was kind of a "let's try to trade anything we can and see if it sticks to the wall" type in the later days. Must have been something in the water - I knew Ken Lay earlier on (had some interesting discussions about competitive transition cost recapture) when he was still a head in the clouds econ type. Not sure if he just listened to too many bad subordinates, or if he went nuts. Great way to ruin a solid company though.

[Ben Kenobi]

If only there were Democrats who were pro-gun, anti-union, pro-business, anti-tax, anti-universal health care, and anti-abortion I would vote for them.

I'd happily vote for them too.

[Straybow]

I heard enough (and by now, most of the country has heard more than enough) out of Palin's pie-hole

Like I said, you probably think Palin said she could see Russia from her back yard...

Sunshine, or moonshine? "Liberal" media? What a joke - the mainstream media is all corporate and ratings driven. News is all packaged as a saleable commodity - and whether you're a tinfoil hat lefty outlet, or tinfoil hat righty outlet, or anything else, is driven by marketing and demographics. If being liberal made more money, Rush would "see the light" in a heartbeat. The one thing sacrificed by the full spectrum of the media is objectivity.

No, that would imply there is some kind of commodity value. There is none. It is all marketing and propaganda. It's a popularity contest. Who has the smoothest delivery, pleasant features, etc. Networks report everything Obama does with a smile and a gee-whiz-ain't-it-great, and everything any Republican does with a frown and a what-will-happen-to-the-women-and-children.

And yet the guys you elected just reelected that speaker overwhelmingly, with some rationaliation that getting only 95% of the vote was an expression of dissatisfaction. The deficit is obscene, but it needs to be reined in gradually, and frankly, neither party has sensible proposals. Despite the waste in Federal contracting, earmarks, etc., you see no real effort toward procurment reform, and the GOP is just as guilty as the Dems when it comes to talking out both side of their mouth.

The speaker had already purged a couple of outspoken chairs in favor of party loyalists, and no serious campaign was made by anyone with seniority. The conservatives want to work within the party, not start a third party. The freshmen of 1994 had the same problem and most dropped out after a couple terms.

Bush won twice with a (no longer the case) major advantage in fundraising and organization, and against two weak candidates.

Really? Al Gore, incumbant VP, in a strong economy, environmental prophet, inventor of the internet, liberal media favorite, he was a weak candidate? Really? You said a Democrat clone Republican would win, but a Democrat clone Democrat couldn't overcome the "compassionate conservative" Bush? Romney had strong organization and fundraising, yet couldn't overcome an incumbent with a poor performance rating in the worst economy in a generation?

I tell misguided Dems to my left (which is 99.9% of my party, I'm a green dawg, thank you) that when you're a two term incumbent VP with the country at peace and a good economy, and you lose to someone like GWB, you have bigger issues than whether a few thousand people in Florida can figure out how to vote.

But GWB can't possibly have won because the electorate is actually fairly conservative. Nope, conservatives are wackos, not normal people.

Romney was simply flat and uninspiring at best, repulsive at worst,

Because he's a progressive trying not to run as a progressive, but also trying not to run as a conservative...

I noticed it. Who was it on your side who referred to it as "Obamneycare?"

You said a Democrat clone would win, which he was and yet he didn't.

And Romney tried to repudiate it, rather than embrace it, so he alienated everyone, just like he did on most issues. Romney stuck his foot in so far it came back out of his ass - "severely conservative" lmfao. Romney came across to everyone as having the conviction of a used car salesman and a sense of entitlement to the white house. Romney lost because of Romney - not because of his positions, because nobody knew what they'd be from one speech to the next.

Wrong on each point. First, the media and Obama portrayed him as waffling and offensive, and repeated every minor gaff hoping some might become a meme, and some did. They never treated Obama's gaffs the same (much less Biden's). Then again you've already admitted your willfull blindness to the bias in the media, so no wonder you swallowed those lines, hook and sinker.

Second, the proof of your error is in the debates. He was hardly on the radar the day before, and after the first debate he gained from 14 to 18 points on Obama. Why? Because that's the first time the average media-dulled voter actually heard Romney speak, state his position, and be his charming self (and he is, which offends you so much you have to pretend he's some sort of toad).

Third, you are wrong in that he refused to repudiate Romneycare, even to the end. He defended it as "right for Massachusetts but not necessarily as a national program." He refused to sign the pledge to repeal Obamacare until the end of July, and he did it like a kid being forced to eat his veggies. By then it was too late to rally the conservative base. FACT. 3 million fewer Republicans voted for him than for McCain 2008, and that means the base didn't turn out.

[Straybow]

The fun part is that the "Moderate Republicans" in 2008 and 2012 decided they needed to act all "hardcore conservative" and tack way right. That'd be the reason I didn't vote for them, btw. I wholeheartedly would love to see a 2000 McCain in office. A 2008 McCain, not so much.

The sad part is you think 2008 and 2012 were "hardcore right" campaigns...

[Ben Kenobi]

You've been missed, straybow.

Romney came across to everyone as having the conviction of a used car salesman

Car salesmen are proud of earning money.

[Aeson]

Really? Al Gore, incumbant VP, in a strong economy, environmental prophet, inventor of the internet, liberal media favorite, he was a weak candidate? Really?

Yes. If you think about it, you'd have to be a pretty bad campaigner to lose with so much that should have been going for you. Yet Gore accomplished it by being bland and uninspiring, and somewhat "ivory tower".

Romney was a lot like Gore, only with more interesting gaffes, more interesting background, and "golden" rather than "ivory".

Bush came across as a down-to-earth and humorous guy who actually cared about the average Joe. For that we overlooked his minor flaws like a propensity of starting unnecessary wars. Obama gives a good speech so we don't mind so much that he's accelerating us into insolvency at breakneck speed.

[kentonio]

Networks report everything Obama does with a smile and a gee-whiz-ain't-it-great, and everything any Republican does with a frown and a what-will-happen-to-the-women-and-children.

Maybe it would help if the Republicans stopped trying to do horrible things to children and women?

Because he's a progressive trying not to run as a progressive, but also trying not to run as a conservative...

You're actually semi right here, although calling him a progressive is pretty stupid. He was indeed though trying to claim the hardcore right vote without completely aligning with the hardcore right, of course the reason he did that was because he knew that a hard right candidate has absolutely no hope of winning.

Wrong on each point. First, the media and Obama portrayed him as waffling and offensive, and repeated every minor gaff hoping some might become a meme, and some did. They never treated Obama's gaffs the same (much less Biden's). Then again you've already admitted your willfull blindness to the bias in the media, so no wonder you swallowed those lines, hook and sinker.

They didn't have to go looking for gaffes, he was the most gaffe worthy presidential candidate in modern history. Seriously, people will be reading back his comments in political science classes and laughing their asses off for centuries to come. Obama made a few screw ups, but (apart from the first debate) he never screwed up too badly.

Second, the proof of your error is in the debates. He was hardly on the radar the day before, and after the first debate he gained from 14 to 18 points on Obama. Why? Because that's the first time the average media-dulled voter actually heard Romney speak, state his position, and be his charming self (and he is, which offends you so much you have to pretend he's some sort of toad).

He didn't gain anything, Obama lost the points. It's funny however that you Republican types are happy to throw Romney under the bus one second and yet still can't help leaping to his defense the next.

Third, you are wrong in that he refused to repudiate Romneycare, even to the end. He defended it as "right for Massachusetts but not necessarily as a national program."[/QUOTE]

That of course would be a couple of years after he touted it as a national model on CNN?

[Ben Kenobi]

Maybe it would help if the Republicans stopped trying to do horrible things to children and women?

By forcing them to pay for their own damn contraception?