The Detroit News reports that Michigan’s congressional delegation has secured an agreement with House Democrats that could send three percent of the revenue from carbon emissions permits to American automakers starting in 2012. That would amount to billions of dollars every year, says DetN, and that’s not all. The new compromise also includes changes to carbon-cap proposals that “could ease the impact on states such as Michigan that rely heavily on coal for electricity generation.”
The Democrats still haven’t determined how the three percent CO2 rebate would be divided between the Detroit Three, how the funds would be issued, or whether Chrysler is even an American automaker anymore. Detroit would receive 3 percent of allowances (funds raised through auctions of polluting rights and fines) from 2012 through 2017, and 1 percent of allowances through 2025.
“This is a significant achievement for the automotive industry and its workers, as the bill will help fund research, development, implementation and deployment of new, low-carbon technologies and upgrading manufacturing facilities to provide the next generation of green vehicles right here in the United States,” says Rep John Dingell (D-MI). It’s also a significant achievement for the automotive industry in the sense that it guarantees Detroit some form of revenue by 2012. Profitability, here we come!
Quite interesting.
I’ve wondered what carrot/stick methods will be used to float Government/Gettelfinger Motors.
“Cap N Tax” has the potential to be one of the best govt boondoggles ever. Massive revenue generated with no obvious connection the the real culprit – government.
This is not a good sign.
OMG. I wonder if PCH101 or agenthex will be able to defend this misbegotten child of a defective female canine.
It’s a funny thing, people can be smart if they choose to be.
For example, if instead you had thought: “what would agenthex say about this”, and then typed it up, you may well be close and marvel at the accuracy of your statement. Try it.
In many ways, we choose whom we pattern our behaviors after. Choose wisely.
Carbon trading certainly stands to be full of massive fraud and corruption. Rather than be upset about it, I’m trying to figure out how to profit by selling carbon credits based on dubiously effective carbon sequestering.
Hmm, I seem to recall reading that by 2011 there will be more cars built in the US by “foreign” brands than by Ford, GM and Chrysler combined… So will part of that 3% be going to Honda and Toyota, or will it just be a shameless giveaway to the three favored companies we like to think of as “American” notwithstanding the fact that they will soon be the minority of the domestic auto industry?
@ Robert Schwartz,
I don’t think you are going to see Pch101 or agenthex defending this. I say that because I agree with them most of the time. The revenues should go to reducing taxes, or as direct payments (“dividends”) to citizens, in order to maintain political support for the cap and trade. This sort of thing will tempt other interest groups to demand their share of the proceeds, and undermine political support.
Ha!
Anybody who read Atlas Shrugged knew how this was going to work.
“Let’s see, the automakers will be allocated X pounds of pollution. Detroit will get credits based on the number of factories they own, operational or not, and the capacity they could produce if they made cars people want to buy. Honda and Toyota will be allocated credits on the same basis. However, since they have less factories, they’ll get less. If they want to sell more cars, they’ll have to buy more credits from Detroit.”
Viola! It’s deja vu all over again…
I am sure funneling carbon tax receipts back to Detroit would be some sort of violation of free trade laws as an illegal subsidy.
I don’t think you are going to see Pch101 or agenthex defending this.
This is similar to the usual congressional earmarking. It depends on how the money gets spent. Believe it or not, decisions on spending should be dependent on the individual merits of the purchase.
If it’s used to conduct effective R&D into lowering energy use, then that may be well spent, but given the overall competence of the d3, that is doubtful.
This seems to be part of some horse trading to get the overall bill to pass, which I guess is politics as usual.
Sorry Robert Schwartz, you’ll have to wait til next time.
–
Anybody who read Atlas Shrugged knew how this was going to work.
I wonder if its intended readership is supposed to know that it’s fiction. I guess that in itself is fine as a cultural reference in lieu of an obvious supporting body of evidence, but sad when it’s all you have.
For example, there are all these movies where shit happens after a black guy gets elected president…
I’m sure the European brands that just pay CAFE fines instead of compromising their products are laughing their asses off.
One of the main reasons I read TTAC is for the dialog between Robert Schwartz and PCH101. I also like the supporting arguments from those like David Holzman and agenthex. The open dialog airs out the issue and allows me to make a better choice. I think Robert is too far FOX news and PCH is too bleeding heart/perfect world but both make good arguments and most of the time, follow it up with facts.
In this case, and the case of any carbon tax/sale/alottment; it is a false product. One that doesn’t exist so bankers can make more money. Before the greens attack my statement, I’m not saying that Carbon buildup through polution does not exist. What is false is the speculation that will exist if the government were to tax it. And who will pay that tax? You and I. The money will come in, big buisness will buy credits, banks will speculate on the value of those credits. No product is created, only stolen from your wallet. It is not the same as speculating on pork bellies or wheat. It is a non-product.
No product is created, only stolen from your wallet.
This is false. Reduced pollution is bought/created.
This is no different than any other form of pollution. You can either introduce the incentive (conservatives should love it, it’s so “market oriented” instead of the gov’s “regulations”) to reduce it now, or you can pay for the cost of pollution later.
For example, if you pay an exterminator to rid of bugs, you don’t claim nothing happened because he didn’t “create” anything.
Btw, in case anyone missed it, related smack-down awesomeness in progress:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/omb-memo-criticizes-epa-co2-ruling
@agenthex,
I diagree. Pollution isn’t bought, it is a byproduct and it is being charged in the negative.
And not a good example. Your bug guy is charging not to rid your house because as any Floridian knows, you will get the bugs with or without him, but you are paying for his labor, experties and the purchase of his chemicals with the HOPE of having less bugs than before. Less bugs is a byproduct of his service…just like pollution. Now what they are trying to do is charge you his fee as well as a fee for each bug killed…and then the bankers openly gamble (speculate) on just how many that will be at a given rate.
Who ever said that enviro-taxes would be used to protect the environment?
Taxes collected under the Kyoto protocol are not used for the environment; they are used as handouts for the poor nations of the world. So what’s wrong with carbon taxes in the U.S. being used as handouts for poor corporations?
And not a good example.
No, it’s a great example. You are just confused because you are using two different semantic definitions of “byproduct”.
It’s simple:
Pay exterminator – less bugs (hoped or otherwise).
Pay into this – less pollution (hoped or otherwise).
The effectiveness of treatment is a separate discussion.
I don’t think you are going to see Pch101 or agenthex defending this.
I can’t speak for the other guy, but speaking for myself, no, you won’t.