# The Costs of Cap-and-Trade **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-costs-of-cap-and-trade/501203 "2009-06-27T22:25:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-costs-of-cap-and-trade/501203/61 "2009-07-06T01:33:13Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I guess I meant to include that in “industry flight,” assuming there’s only a minor economic difference between an industry relocating to Mexico or a Mexican industry gaining a greater market share. > > Similarly, the flip side of that strategic question (e.g. benefits to ensuring that US renewable energy industry has an international advantage), falls under 4. > > I recall that critics of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act made arguments similar to the generic ones being made about this bill. Are there any studies on the actual economic effects the Clean Air Act and how they compare to the critics claims? I was thinking more about placing us in a position where we become unnecessarily dependent on someone else for - Energy - Food - High-value added manufactured goods, especially defense systems When they could, in theory, be produced here if it wasn’t for governmental restrictions (Emissions, use of chemicals, trade restrictions on inputs). Try Googling ‘Cato Institute Clean Air Act’. I just did, and a bunch of papers came up. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-costs-of-cap-and-trade/501203/62 "2009-07-06T02:12:53Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > I was thinking more about placing us in a position where we become unnecessarily dependent on someone else for > > - Energy > - Food > - High-value added manufactured goods, especially defense systems > > When they could, in theory, be produced here if it wasn’t for governmental restrictions (Emissions, use of chemicals, trade restrictions on inputs). Oh, I see. Well, obviously energy works the opposite way. The bill is likely to make us more energy independent. I wouldn’t be too worried about food. But manufactured goods is interesting. You make an argument similar to one of the rationale’s of the auto bailout–we need the capability to make cars so we can convert that equipment and skills into wartime uses if need be. > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Try Googling ‘Cato Institute Clean Air Act’. I just did, and a bunch of papers came up. I meant papers by academic economists, not partisan pieces. But I’ll see what CATO has to say. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-costs-of-cap-and-trade/501203/63 "2009-07-06T02:15:03Z")
Regarding domestic industry being hurt by foreign competition, the WTO gave their approval for using taxes on imported goods to account for the Chinas of the world who decide to drag their heels on reducing emissions. [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9d8ad2e-61e9-11de-9e03-00144feabdc0.html?nclick\_check=1](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9d8ad2e-61e9-11de-9e03-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1) ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-costs-of-cap-and-trade/501203/64 "2009-07-06T02:29:03Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Oh, I see. Well, obviously energy works the opposite way. The bill is likely to make us more energy independent. I wouldn’t be too worried about food. But manufactured goods is interesting. You make an argument similar to one of the rationale’s of the auto bailout–we need the capability to make cars so we can convert that equipment and skills into wartime uses if need be. > > I meant papers by academic economists, not partisan pieces. But I’ll see what CATO has to say. Right. I can see we are drifting into the sarcasm portion of the evening. Serves me right. One of the reasons we are uncompetitive in auto manufacturing is that we are destroying it with one hand (UAW support, protectionism, and CAFE) whilst we subsidize it with the other. If you think wind/solar and the other pie-in-the-sky fantasies being touted by the left are going to produce true energy independence from foreign sources in the next 50 years, you’re dreaming. The two things that could move the needle in that time frame are coal and nuclear, and they of course are getting the short shrift from our current leaders in D.C. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-costs-of-cap-and-trade/501203/65 "2009-07-06T02:34:56Z")
None of my post was sarcasm. Also, nuclear will get significant boost from this plan. You should read it. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-costs-of-cap-and-trade/501203/66 "2009-07-06T02:48:07Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > There seems to be a profound lack of understanding of rudimentary economic principles. > > Of course, it could come down to something similar to **flickster’s** I-don’t-want-to-reduce-emissions-so-it-doesn’t-matter-what’s-being-talked-about-I’m-going-to-call-it-names-anyway irrelevancies to the topic, so there very well could be _some_ basic understanding in other contexts. But very little here. Actually, you seem to have a profound lack of understanding of my comment. I don’t have a problem with reducing emissions, I have a problem with a plan that in effect is a tax on the consumer for a misguided policy trying to cure an unproven problem. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-costs-of-cap-and-trade/501203/67 "2009-07-06T02:54:50Z")
Was the Emancipation Proclamation a tax on consumers of cotton? Not everything that raises a price is a tax. Calling it a tax is just empty political rhetoric that you should be embarrassed to repeat like it makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-costs-of-cap-and-trade/501203/68 "2009-07-06T03:45:36Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Was the Emancipation Proclamation a tax on consumers of cotton? Not everything that raises a price is a tax. Calling it a tax is just empty political rhetoric that you should be embarrassed to repeat like it makes sense. Call it what you will, the effect is still the same. Just because the politicians that support this don’t want (or have the balls) to call it what it is doesn’t change the result. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-costs-of-cap-and-trade/501203.md?page=3)