Seriously though, in all honesty.

Isn't there anyone on capital hill with a voice loud enough to stop this spread of misinformation? This must be Pelosi's and Reid's plan to remain silent while the GOP run around like a bunch of goons and misinform the nation on everything. There are really not that many vocal liberal voices on capital hill I can think of.

Someone needs to step up to the plate and stop these bozo GOP'ers dead in their tracks.

Brian: Can you tell us why the number is wrong? Was the initial estimate too high? Are costs attributable to some relevant measure besides households. The fact that its wrong and being distorted is one thing, but tell us what the facts are.

As someone who has followed the global warming debate closely, I'm beginning to wonder whether it might be worthwhile for some of these scientists to pursue the misuse of their studies in court. Some of these scientists' studies have been taken so out of context, and the information from their studies has been so distorted in the public realm, that it may begin to damage their reputation. Thus, I am beginning to wonder why they haven't threatened libel or slander suits against the offending parties. From George Will to Inhofe and Marc Morano,there have been so many egregious distortions of information. There has to be some way to put and end to this. I wish the scientific community would begin to aggressively counter these gross distortions that damage their reputation and authority on some of the our most vexing modern issues.

It would be nice if someone explained to me where he got the number. Obviously simply dividing 366 billion by the number of households is misleading but is that the distortion or is it the 366 billion itself?

I still haven't figured out how cap and trade will effectively work to get power generation companies greener. Most power companies are a monopoly, some are price controlled and some not. If you tax them for what ever reason they will simply pass the cost on to the consumer. Since they don't have any competition trying to undercut their costs and people will still need power so they really don't have any motivation to invest in cleaner technologies to lower the carbon tax. So if you live in Kentucky and are currently enjoying a very low power rate thanks to a very dirty coal plant you will see your bill go up significantly but will it really motivate the coal company to reduce emissions when the price they charge is set by the state based on costs? I'm not sure it will.

I still don't see the error in the number. I can see that it is not a direct tax on consumers, but that doesn't mean they don't end up with the tab.

Additional revenue MUST come from somewhere. If most of the tax falls to industrial users, then that will increase the price of their products or services, and the consumers will ultimately bear the cost. Since America is a very low net exporter, (especially of electrical power, where a lot of the CO2 comes from) most of that cost will fall to American consumers.

To further that thought, I did some checking, and in 2006 US exports were 11-12% of GDP. I didn't find more recent data, but I doubt it has increased much if any since then.

If we assume those exports account for a pro-rated share of carbon generation,* then that means Americans will be supplying 85-90% of any revenue that a "carbon tax" generates.

The lie the republicans are telling is in the fact that consumption is not evenly spread across households....it increases with income, so the rich will be hit hardest by this. Actually, though, poor folks spend a greater percentage of thier income (vs. investing, saving, etc) so while the poor pay a lower share, it still amounts to a regressive tax.

*An assumption that might contain some error, but is probably a decent approximation.

Jon Koomey:

How do the models get from a transfer payment by carbon emitters to other parties to a reduction in R&D? Seems like you'd need a very simple-minded static scoring system for that.

And, of course in the long run all of this assumes a) that GDP is a useful measurement tool for such things (even though in the short run disasters increase GDP) and b) that there are no significant costs being avoided by mitigating climate change.

For all entrepeneurs, municipalities, Condo associations and savvy consumers not to mention the Earth, Cap & Trade is a potential goldmine.

If we all(individually or ditributively) were to generate our own individual electricity and sell back the unused energy, utility companies would reduce the need for carbon emmiting power plants and the cost associated with said carbon. Their mandate would shift from generation to maintenence and distrubution. There would still be $$$ to be made selling energy to industry as well as to places where local generation is impractical, not to mention all the demand for new solar and wind energy generation systems. This could prop up our struggling Manufacturing base as, since we are "Taxing" carbon, supply chains to China become less economical. All this without instituting "Protectionism" as we would "tax" even domestic Carbon-heavy supply chains.

With added energy volumes over time, electric cars could easily replace oil based fuels, at least for automobiles. As mass production of these new energy technologies take hold the cost of energy will be small enough that even Limited range electric vehicles work as employers would offer car charging as a standard benefit as it would cost little, and would likely be tax deductable.

Anyone DISagree?

OK, so can someone please tell me how much the cap & trade will cost each household??? Is it free?? is it $ 1,500 per house,$ 2000,3000????
So,if the GOP figures it to be $ 3100 per household (accurate or inaccurate) what is the chance that the goverment amount will be more than $3,1000? or less than $3100?
First of all, the government is going to tax the energy companies more just as a business tax.Second, they are also going to tax the energy itself . Do you think the energy companies will not raise their fees if the government makes it cost more for them to stay in business.Of course not,the energy companies will RAISE their fees to the consumer.
I'll give the administration a bone and say,the Cap & Trade will be half of what the GOP says, so it will be $ 1550 per house hold. So if I get this straight,the administration is giving us a $800 per couple Fed. income tax break(new as of March '09) but at the same time the Cap $ Trade will cost every household $ 1550 (half of GOP estimate). So as of new Obama policy, that's $ 750 extra I'm going to have to shell out extra now as opposed to just 1 month ago??? Looks like another tax increase to me. And that doesn't even count the cost of gasoline that will be taxed more.
That's just one facet of the new administration.
One more question, if Bush left office with a budget deficit of 550 billion and that's called "irresponsible spending",WTF is tripling the budget deficit . Tell me how is that money going to EVER be paid back????

Leaving aside the "what ifs" of capntrade, addressing the claim by halwork that Bush left office with a budget deficit of $550 billion, in truth he left office with a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. Apparently halwork forgot to factor in the TARP allocation which occurred on his watch. Sort of like Bush forgetting to factor into his yearly deficits the cost of Iraq and AFghanistan (a slight-of-hand which Obama has rectified).