The closing this week of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which was envisioned to be the key player in the trillion-dollar "cap and trade" market, was the final nail in the coffin of the Obama administration's effort to pass the controversial program meant to combat global warming.This Carbon trading exchange is a scam that Al Gore was in on the ground floor. To see it fall warms the cockles of my Global Cooling chilled heart.
"When those that voted for the measure in 2009 went home on July 4th after the vote, they met widespread outrage among their constituents," said Nick Loris, an analyst with Heritage Foundation. Conservatives renamed the idea "cap and tax," and they began an assault on the program.Don't cry for the perpetrators, the brains behind it is $90 million richer, and a chief backer is president of the United States:
In the last week, following the Nov. 2 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, the slide became an avalanche. Investors in CCX, including Sandor and former Vice President Al Gore, sold the exchange to a company involved in commodities trading.
The Exchange was the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economist and professor at Northwestern University, and it was modeled after a successful program that was launched in 1990 and helped control acid rain in the Midwest. It was initially funded by a $1.1 million grant from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago, and President Obama was a board member at the time.It doesn't say how much Al Gore made out of it, but my guess is he's not hurting.
It's bad form to brag and gloat and say "I told you so", but I've been harping on this scam since 2005, in the face of hipsters, leftists, and concerned Conservatives even, so it feels very good to me. Excuse me, I'm going to bask in the glow of shattered statists' dreams for a while.
Although this is a good thing and another defeat for the anthropogenic climate change crowd, I don't think this is the end of the global warming scam. I still see a lot of commericials advertising a company that is going green and addressing climate change. A lot of people still believe in this scam. There is a new documentary coming out about how the climate is warming and how we need to address this issue. The UN recently called for a new carbon tax on rich nations to help the poor nations deal with the global warming. And the EPA can still be given the ability to regulate carbon emissions. CAFE standards are still telling us what cars we can drive. The AGW scam is being used to tell us what kind of light bulbs we can use and what types of applicances we can use. Check out the smart grid. And there is too much money involved in the carbon exchange for it to just go away. So overall, the Environmental Movement is still active and being used as a disguise to enact leftist political agendas. http://mises.org/daily/4725
ReplyDeleteWe can't let our guard down.
Liberalism will never be compeletly defeated and they will never stop trying to enact their agenda. Look at health care. It took well of 50 years for them to get it passed but they got it. They are slowly winning.
The EM and AGW scam is such an obvious scam to anyone that looks at the facts. Those polar bears look happy. I was told in one of my classes that the ice is melting and polar bears can't swim too well. And people were ah eee oooing.
This is good. But lets not forget that we should still feel the need on a personal level to take care of our planet. Being environmentally "friendly" should be an ethical decision on an individual basis. I am ah eee oooing about the ice melting (I'm pretty sure this is a fact unless anyone can present evidence that it is not melting) but I'm sure your teacher thinks it is a human made reason (which is not a fact unless anyone can present evidence).
ReplyDeleteI invite and appreciate businesses manufacturing and selling green products. I would rather people drive a Prius from point A to B then a Jeep. It uses less fuel (less demand;prices are cheaper), less pollution (ugly;possible health hazards). I would rather Frito Lay make 100% compostible bags because it looks prettier for a bag do dissolve then for it to linger in our environment and end up in a lake or river etc.
The environment is a non partisan issue. We should all be endorsers of eco friendly agendas as long as it doesnt hinder our life. I know that the EM is horrible and their ulterior motives are what we are against but I think we should be mindful when critizing "green" things. I remember my father telling me that people used to pour their old motor oil and anti freeze down the gutter when they were finished with it. I would rather we not return to those good ol days.
I understand what you are saying and I mostly agree with it.
ReplyDeleteToejamm, "I am ah eee oooing about the ice melting (I'm pretty sure this is a fact unless anyone can present evidence that it is not melting)"
It actually is not melting and according to this article it is growing. I remember this being in the news. "Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html
And on Frito Lay making environmentally friendly bags, "About 18 months after the company unveiled its new 100 percent compostable packaging for SunChips, the company has said it will transition back to the original packing for five of its six flavors. The original, plain flavored chips will still be sold in the eco-friendly wrappers. The reason for the switch? Consumers say the packaging is too loud. What? Yes, it's too loud.
And the only thing louder than the packaging may be the complaining about it." http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/frito-scraps-loud-sunchips-bag/story?id=11806952
I agree that we should take care of the environment. I like nature and I want it preserved too. But the point about the companies going "green" is that it is in response to government pressure that is designed to prevent a nonexistent crisis--climate change. I think the whole go green movement is a scam. Let the free market work and the environment will be taken care of.
This is how the left works: it disguises its agendas and spreads them under the guise of something that we all want and support.
ReplyDeleteCould companies be going green because the consumer wants it that way? If this statement is true, then the answer is yes.
ReplyDelete"This is how the left works: it disguises its agendas and spreads them under the guise of something that WE ALL WANT AND SUPPORT."
I read the article you cited about the polar ice caps. I read some other stuff too. I stand corrected about the ice melting.
I think companies are going green mostly because of government pressure and to a lesser extent from consumer pressure. I have no way to prove this. But it has been the government who has been shaping public perception on environmental issues.
ReplyDeleteHardcore environmentalism is a religion that worships nature and puts nature before man and is even willingly to sacrifice human lives and people's quality of life to preserve nature. Look at the DDT issue and many others. It is the same religions of old.
I think instead of worshiping nature, those environmentalist need to get a clue and align with reality and/or get a new religion.
How did people like Al Gore and Obama get put in to leadership positions of this nation? I can't believe it.
ReplyDeleteThis is a cool quote that pertains to that question
ReplyDelete"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Obama was elected because of the financial crisis and partly because he was black and hip and cool. Obama is not the last of his kind.
Good quote. Can you please tell me who said it?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure where it came from. I got it from a local talk show host's website.
ReplyDelete"Ron from Dunwoody emailed this quote that appeared in a Czech newspaper in April of this year. I think the Czechs may be on to something ... "
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/06/quote-
from-a-listener-1.html
I find it interesting that the German people elected Hitler as the result of the conditions that existed in their country after WW I and the economic conditions that are similar to economic conditions that America and the world will Possibly find itself in, and they nearly worshiped him and got fooled by him into going into WW II. I wonder if Hitler appeared to the German people of that time as the evil man that the world now views him as? If a cultured people like the Germans that were very similar to us could elect and follow a Hitler, I wonder if America could do the same given the proper conditions?
I've seen more comparisons with Bush and Hitler then any other leader.
ReplyDeleteYeah Jeff, I think I posted that quote a long time ago. I don't remember where I found it. So true though. That's why I'm not entirely comfortable with the great news about the election. What's to say the morons won't lurch back the other way at a moment's notice, since their vote is given one way or the other so frivolously?
ReplyDeleteToeJamm, regarding your Green Companies question: value is in the eyes of the beholder. Speaking from the electric utility perspective, there are many people that will gladly pay three-times the going rate for their electricity to be told by us that they are buying Green Power. If it matters to you that your power is not gotten from a coal-smoke-belching plant, then, this is a worthwhile thing for you. For many people, using re-useable grocery bags or paper, instead of plastic, is a good thing, because the thought of non-biodegradable bags sitting in land fills is disgusting to them. Who am I to say they are right or wrong to think this? I say more power to them if that's what they want to do, but don't force it on me. I also say "what are you putting your garbage in?".
The Prius issue is another interesting topic. Certainly, high mpg in cars has an economic benefit for the owner. And that owner can derive satisfaction knowing he is not sending as much carbon monoxide air pollution into the atmosphere as someone driving a low mpg car. But, that is a very simplistic economic and environmental analysis of the cost/benefit of a Prius or other electric/hyrbrid car. On the economic side, the sticker cost of the Prius is so high compared to say, a cheap Ford Focus that you'd have to either own the Prius for a very long time, or have the price of gas skyrocket to ever derive economic benefit from it. And that ignores the 10-year life expectency of the very expensive battery. Basically, assuming gas prices are relatively steady, a Prius is not cost effective compared to a Ford Focus.
Regarding the environmental side, there are two related issues: 1) the implications of initial cost and 2) the facts of life regarding batteries
Regarding 1), high cost -usually- implies high energy to build. It can also be high because of popularity or some kind of mandate forcing us to buy. My guess about the price of the Prius is that it is the materials that are so expensive to develop and assemble for the special batteries that makes the price so high...a battery that only has a 10-year life expectency before it needs to be replaced! Which, FYI, is pretty standard for industrial strength batteries. But, this high cost/energy input (most likely from factories powered by cheap-electricy coal-belching plants) somewhat negates the direct environmental benefit of low carbon emissions from the Prius.
Regarding 2): batteries are made with some of the most highly toxic chemicals man deals with. You can say that "well, it's closely managed so the poisons don't get into the environment". OK, you can say that. Do you really think that?
What I'm saying is that Green value is in the eye of the beholder, and not totally a scam, but don't force it on me. Green can become economically viable when government mandate forces the normal, cheaper alternatives off the market or prices them out of consideration.
I think the Hitler comparisons are over done and an over simplification. It is a way for someone to describe a President or leader that they don't like. It is like most liberals that used the word Nazi to encapsulate or describe something that they don't like on the right. It is the equivlaent of calling someone stupid.
ReplyDeleteBud-D said why I think the Green movement is a scam much better than I did. I think the reason most people want to go green in the 1st place is that their persepection on the environment and man's influence on it has been influenced by the government.
Also the Prius is touted as being green and saving money on fuel when in fact it is not really all that more environmentally friendly than a conventional car and it actually costs more. And even if we do have cars that will consume a lot less fuel what will happen to the price of gas when people stop consuming as much? It won't go down because the revenue on taxes that the government gets from gas taxes will go down so that they will increase the tax which will offset the savings that come from lower consumption. The same will happen with electricity consumption. And why is gas so expensive in the 1st place? Because of government environmental rules that does not allow America to utilize its natural resources. I heard America has a much oil reserves a the Middle East. The Chevy Volt is touted as green but it is a straight up rip off and a piece of crap that came in to existence because the government and more specifically Obama demanded it of THEIR car company. All of the other green products are inferior and a rip off, according to a consumer reports that I read. It just makes people feel better while they are paying more for an inferior product.
And on Bud-D statement, "Green can become economically viable when government mandate forces the normal, cheaper alternatives off the market or prices them out of consideration."
I disagree with this. The government can not force new technology to be created, if it could why are we living in space? The only way government can make going green cheaper is for them to subsidize or give tax credits it which is not economically efficient as it just shifts the extra cost from the consumer to the tax payer as a whole. The government can mandate that green energy sources be used but they can't mandate lower prices which would make it economically viable. I say let the free market work and truly green technology will come about. There is already enough incentive for this to happen without government mandate.
And on the environment in general, I am a Christian and I know Who is in control of it and that man can not destroy the environment or make the climate change and I believe that the environment will be restored to its original condition without any pollution that existed before this Earth age that environmentalist have wet dreams about. But it is no excuse to trash it either. This is a far better alternative than believing the environmental pagan religions that sacrifice human lives to Mother Nature.
Jeff, regarding Green being viable because of government mandate, one example would be if the government were inclined to say "henceforth all cars will be hybrids or electric". Immediately, they would be economically viable with say Ford Focus' because the Focus would be illegal.
ReplyDeleteOr just put heavy pressure on corporations: for example, fearing a crackdown on our sweet cheap coal electricy production, our corporate leaders decided we should kiss some government ass, so made a policy (without explicit direction from the government) to substantially increase the percentage of wind power in our company. This will raises everybody's rates, not just those who specifically ask for Green power. Not because wind power suddenly became viable, but purely for political reasons.
In both examples, the economic loser is the customer. Whether it's worthwhile environmentally is open for debate.
Bud-D, you are wrong about a Focus being more cost effective. I remember you making the same argument ten years ago when gas prices were down and hybrids were a new technology. Now prices are higher and the technology has been refined. Just to make sure I was right I did the math.
ReplyDeleteEdmunds.com listed the cheepest 2010 Prius (51 mpg) at 22,800 and the cheepest 2010 Focus (28 mpg) at 13,999 (there were focuses as much as 23k and Priuses as high as 30k but for simplicity we'll compare the base model. Furthermore I would like to state that the base models had the same mpg as the fully loaded models).
eia.doe.gov had the average gas price in the nation at 2.865 per gallon on 11/8/10.
Considering that you would drive a very modest 10k miles a year, this would cost you $1023.21 in the focus and $561.77 in the Prius. This makes a difference of $461.44 per year on gas. I divided this total in to the difference of the base price for these vehicles in order to find how many years it would take to make up the amount you saved with the Focus. The answer is that it would take 19.01 years to make up that money. People keep their cars this long all the time. My father kept his for damn near 25 years. I'm not done yet though.
a) This is figuring a fixed gas price (favors the focus)
b) The time and extra miles you have to use to make extra visits to the gas station (this definitely affects the economic utility)
c) Toyotas are a notoriously more reliable car and Ford's (especially focus) have horrendous resale value.
d) I give you the favor of comparing a Prius with a Focus. There are hundreds of more expensive four door sedans that cost thousands more.
e) You can roll a prius down the Pearl District and get all sorts of hotties (if you're a bachelor).
On your point Bud-D about corporations voluntarily going green, look at GE to see that they stand to make a lot of money off green energy, due in part to government subsidies, and look at their relationship to the government to see how they have a somewhat close relationship with each other.
ReplyDeleteToejamm, in your calculations on the savings of the Prius over the Focus you did not include the cost of replacing the batteries which according to Toyota's website is "The price of the 2000-2003 first-generation Prius battery has been reduced to $2,299, while the 2004-2008 second-generation Prius battery is reduced to $2,588. Prior to this most recent price reduction, both batteries were priced at $2985."http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/TYT2008092372406.aspx?ncid=12067
I think they have to be replaced every ten years. If so, adding 5176 (2588X2=5176) to the difference in the price (22,800-13,999=8801)and 8801+5176=13977 divided by 461.44=30 years. It would take 30 years to make up the money. And on the fact that some people do keep their car for twenty years, that is by far not the norm let alone 30 years. It is true that you might be able to save money on the batteries by buying them from a wrecked Prius, but that would not make a lot of difference. I think the convience factor of not having to fuel up so often and the "feel good" factor for those trying to go green are the main selling point for buying a Prius. Although the Prius might not be so good for the environment because of the batteries. American roads will soon be full of little Euro crap car that is unsafe. Also note that CAFE standards have lead to unnecessary deaths because manafacures have had to make the cars smaller.
I think we will have to wait for the future until we get a viable "green" energy source.
Also the Prius becomes less economically viable when you factor in the maintenance cost at five years and the average cost per mile for the Prius and the Focus. The 5 year maintenance cost for the Prius is 1,478 and the average cost per mile is 0.62 cents http://autos.aol.com/cars-Toyota-Prius-2010/cost-to-own/
ReplyDeleteAND the 5 year main cost for the Focus is 1,072 the average cost per mile is 0.54 cents.
http://autos.aol.com/cars-Ford-Focus-2010/cost-to-own/
I do not know if this figure includes the cost of batteries since it is the 5 year total and the batteries have to be replaced at the 10 year mark. Even if it did it the Prius does not stack up.
So the bottom line is the Prius cost more to drive per mile even with the savings in fuel. So from the point of saving money it is a total rip off. And the only other reason to drive the Prius which is because it saves the environment might not even be true in the case of polluting less and definitly not true in stopping global warming. So the Prius like all other "green" products is a total rip off for your pocket and almost certaintly the environment. Our desire to save the environment is being used to rip us off and a means for us to slowly give up our freedoms. A total scam.
If you buy a Prius brand new then they offer free battery replacement with their warranty plans. My calculation still holds.
ReplyDeleteYou are looking at a 5 year window. That is a bad scientific comparison.If you stretch the life out to 15 to 20 years then the variables change value and meaning. If people owned cars for five years then maybe this would be important. The cost on cars could be presented as exponential and the early costs don't compute the advantage of having a Toyota over a Ford.
ReplyDeleteThe sites you had computed financing and insurance as well. These two variables could be heavily reduced if you bought the car straight up.
ReplyDeleteThe batteries are warrantied for eight years or 80,000 miles. You would still most likely have to pay the cost of replacing the battery at least once during your 20 years. And on the reliability issue with Ford, they have improved their quality by a large margin as of lately, read consumer reports, and Toyota has had several quality issues; but we can compare the Prius to a Corolla to do away with the quality issue and your exponential cost or the advantage that a Prius has over the Focus in the long run. Although comparing a Corolla with the Prius favors the Prius more than comparing it with a Focus. And on buying the car straight up, I would say that the number of people that are able to do that is very small maybe around 5%, just a guess.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that as of now owning a Prius for the large majority is still more expensive than owning a non hybrid such as the Focus or a Corolla even taking away the cost of replacing the batteries and taking away the financing and insurance cost. This will probably change when technology improves.
This makes the Prius look better. http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/prius-battery.html
ReplyDelete"A frequently voiced concern about hybrids centers around the high cost of replacement batteries, which have ranged up to about $3,000. Now some relief may be on the way. Toyota announced last month that it has reduced the price of replacement batteries for the current (2002-2009) Prius by $686, to $2,299. Batteries for the first-generation Prius dropped $397 to $2,588.
That still seems like a lot of money. But overall, we have found hybrids to be very reliable in our subscriber surveys and relatively inexpensive to own. Automakers are required to warranty batteries for 8 years and 80,000 miles nationwide or 10 years and 150,000 miles in states that follow California emissions regulations. Relatively few hybrids have exceeded that mileage yet."
"Given the length of the battery warranty, even if a hybrid owner does have to replace the battery pack after 80,000 or 150,000 miles, the cost is comparable to the cost of a transmission, which would likely have failed in other cars before that point. And hybrids have fewer other issues, which more makes up for any added battery cost. "
Oh, man, ToeJamm calls my bluff! Actually, though, as Jeff says, with the cost of the battery...After TEN years, it pushes your point of cost-effectiveness out even farther. And even at 19.5 years, that's really a hell of a long time. If I tried to justify a 19.5 year payback time for a project I proposed in my company, they'd laugh me out of the room, because they can invest their money in stocks and make it back faster than that. Plus that assumes there aren't other problems that show up with this more-or-less brand new technology. They mention transmissions would go out in other cars for example. Most cars don't require their transmissions to be replaced. Some do. What's to say they won't go out in the hybrid's? They have transmissions too. Maybe simpler, I don't know, but they really haven't been around long enough to prove out one way or another. Maybe there are other characteristics of a hybrid engine that will show to still require technological improvements over the long haul. We'll see.
ReplyDeleteNo, good analysis ToeJamm, but I think I still stand by my statement.
And hardly anyone keeps cars as long as I do!
I also read that the actual mpg for the Prius is around 41 and not the 51. And the reason as to why people want to drive these hybrids to save money on fuel is because our government artifically restricts America's supply of fuel with environmental regulations that prevents us from using our resources. This whole go green scam is a big rip off and should be called the "Big Green Government Weeny" because it basically performs the same function as a real one. The new Volt and Leaf hybrids are an even bigger scam and rip off.
ReplyDeleteThose 19.1 years were considering that gas prices stay the same. Which they most certainly will not. I listed some other factors that were not in my math analysis too that you have to consider.
ReplyDeleteThe mpg is always at least ten lower then what it is listed. In fact, you bring up a good point. Most gas-only engine cars have a far worse mpg then what is listed. Since most driving is stop and go. Hybrids drive better in stop and go then on freeways.
ReplyDeleteFrom my personal experience, the MPG ratings on my car have panned out to be accurate.
ReplyDeleteI think that in rare instances, there is a least one, owning a Prius will end up saving money. If you buy the car straight up, don't have to replace the batteries, don't have to replace the transmission, if you don't drive that much thereby reducing maintance cost, doing only city driving, you bought a Prius over a piece of crap Dodge or Chrysler, and etc.
If we weigh in objective analysis, then you are correct. But almost all economic decisions have subjective variables and the fact that a Prius does emmit less pollution tips the scales in making it economically a better vehicle.
ReplyDelete