Cap and Trade is here - California

[CharlieTango]

In California the price of gas went up to include a new cap and trade cost. Before the colapse in oil prices the prediction was an increase of up to $0.75 / gallon.

The increase was small and apparrantly offset by falling prices so no-one seemed to notice, but its there and its real.

The Oil companies now have to buy carbon credits to offset the 'carbon pollution' created by drivers using their 'dirty' fuel. Of course the consumer pays for the penalty to the oil company and the poorest drivers have experience the greatest impact.

I don't know who sells the carbon credits and gets the money or how that saves the planet.

 

[Sac Arrow]

The only comments I have on this would have to be made in the spin zone. The people of California deserve this for reelecting him though. Too bad I have to pay for it.

 

[Dav8or]

There isn't a problem in the world that can't be fixed a good ol' fashion taxation scheme and some solid technocracy. California now has a solid, unified one party rule in most of the state, so it should be smooth sailing now! The world will now marvel at our rapidly expanding utopia. You can really get things done if you just sweep all the block head Republicans out of the way!

Oh, it's gunna be great...

Why isn't this in the Spin Zone? I think it will be shortly.

 

[RJM62]

If the oil companies had a bit of collective scrotal weight, they'd simply stop shipping fuel to California for a while and let the citizens take it up with their elected officials.

Rich

 

[Henning]

In California the price of gas went up to include a new cap and trade cost. Before the colapse in oil prices the prediction was an increase of up to $0.75 / gallon.

The increase was small and apparrantly offset by falling prices so no-one seemed to notice, but its there and its real.

The Oil companies now have to buy carbon credits to offset the 'carbon pollution' created by drivers using their 'dirty' fuel. Of course the consumer pays for the penalty to the oil company and the poorest drivers have experience the greatest impact.

I don't know who sells the carbon credits and gets the money or how that saves the planet.

You could invest in methods of creating carbon credits to offset those costs, and even profit from them on an international scale.

 

[N747JB]

You could invest in methods of creating carbon credits to offset those costs, and even profit from them on an international scale.

I ma pretty sure someone is already making a tidy profit on these credits, and it's not mother nature!

 

[MAKG1]

In California the price of gas went up to include a new cap and trade cost. Before the colapse in oil prices the prediction was an increase of up to $0.75 / gallon.

Were you by any chance around during the switch to unleaded?

I was. The sky didn't fall then, either. Despite quite a number of predictions that it would.

Same thing for OBD-I, OBD-II, catalytic converters, and just about everything else related to the several tens of millions of cars in the state.

 

[TazzyTazzy]

I know very little about this, so, I'll say something and pretend it's from God.

Home owners with solar can sell carbon credits (AKA: Renewable Energy Certificate) on the power they generate (maybe only the excess power??).

I'm completely pulling this outta my arse, but I think something like this happens:

I have solar on my house, I bought a 20 year lease, paid 100% up front with no recurring fees or activites, and it's pretty much mine after the lease if I want it; otherwise they remove the system for free. The lease was 1/4 the cost of buying solar myself and cut my electric bill in half (accounting for the cost of the solar system). I think the solar lease company can sell my carbon offset credits to make up much of that difference. In 20 years, I'll be able to sell those credits myself if the system viable and I decide to keep the system.

 

[Dav8or]

Were you by any chance around during the switch to unleaded?

I was. The sky didn't fall then, either. Despite quite a number of predictions that it would.

Same thing for OBD-I, OBD-II, catalytic converters, and just about everything else related to the several tens of millions of cars in the state.

Nope the sky didn't fall, but we do have higher energy costs than other states because of it and did pay for those catalytic converters when we bought the cars. The cost of living in California is high. This is part of the reason why.

High cost of living doesn't really effect the rich people in the state that come up with these things and the poor are already poor as well they are to be one of the recipients of this carbon tax loot. It squeezes the middle class a little more. Although I have to say, apparently the middle class in California like to pay these hidden taxes because they seem to favor programs like cap and tax and the politicians that come up with stuff like this.

At least in the case of the unleaded fuels and the catalytic converters, we could see a measurable difference in the air and environment over time. In this case, will we ever see any benefit for our money? I seriously doubt it. It's just a tax that the governor can use the funds to pay for his pet projects, like a high speed train to nowhere. It's basically a way to fill the state coffers by taxing the people without having to go through the legislature and all those pesky, obstructionist Republicans.

 

[Norman]

If the oil companies had a bit of collective scrotal weight, they'd simply stop shipping fuel to California for a while and let the citizens take it up with their elected officials.

Rich

Don't forget eggs. Let 'em go without breakfast too.

 

[TazzyTazzy]

It's just a tax that the governor can use the funds to pay for his pet projects, like a high speed train to nowhere.

I voted no on that years ago. This thing is frustrating to me. A 2012 report stats "Reason’s Due Diligence Update projects likely fastest travel times of between 3:50 and 4:40." ( http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf ) You can drive there in 6-7 hours. The 80-100 billion project doesn't really buy you much speed. It's just so frustrating. There are other high priority items to spend this money on...oh...like education.

The peak speed is 220 MPH, but in the metro areas, they will use shared rail and will share conventional rails and the rate will be much slower.

In Japan, back in 1996, they tested the rails up to 275 mph. 18 years later, we are still can't even get to their speeds. In 2003, they reached 361 mph on test track.

The Japan Shinkansen high speed rail is an amazing system. It's eerily quiet, smooth, fast, and efficient. You can't even hear or feel the train stopping, starting, turning, etc. Though, I don't know all the politics there and what it took to build it. The end result is amazing. The California version will be very disappointing - marginally faster than driving yourself down the freeway at 75MPH.

 

[Dav8or]

I voted no on that years ago. This thing is frustrating to me. A 2012 report stats "Reason’s Due Diligence Update projects likely fastest travel times of between 3:50 and 4:40." ( http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf ) You can drive there in 6-7 hours. The 80-100 billion project doesn't really buy you much speed. It's just so frustrating. There are other high priority items to spend this money on...oh...like education.

The peak speed is 220 MPH, but in the metro areas, they will use shared rail and will share conventional rails and the rate will be much slower.

In Japan, back in 1996, they tested the rails up to 275 mph. 18 years later, we are still can't even get to their speeds. In 2003, they reached 361 mph on test track.


The Japan Shinkansen high speed rail is an amazing system. It's eerily quiet, smooth, fast, and efficient. You can't even hear or feel the train stopping, starting, turning, etc. Though, I don't know all the politics there and what it took to build it. The end result is amazing. The California version will be very disappointing - marginally faster than driving yourself down the freeway at 75MPH.

We already have a high speed train between SF and LA. It's twice as fast as the proposed train, cheaper fares than the train and it's here now. It's called Southwest Airlines. Why do we need the train again? Just for people that are afraid to fly??

 

[Dav8or]

If the oil companies had a bit of collective scrotal weight, they'd simply stop shipping fuel to California for a while and let the citizens take it up with their elected officials.

Rich

I think a better idea is to bring the tax out into the open. It is hidden, so consumers don't really understand why they are paying more than say Texans are. I think that just as food producers are now required to label their products with nutritional values, I think gasoline retailers should be required to post the taxes at the pump in a highly visible way. We currently pay an .18 cent highway tax per gallon. This new carbon tax will likely equal that very soon and could well exceed it in the near future. Californians need to be slapped in the face with where their money is going.

 

[RalphInCA]

We already have a high speed train between SF and LA. It's twice as fast as the proposed train, cheaper fares than the train and it's here now. It's called Southwest Airlines. Why do we need the train again? Just for people that are afraid to fly??

Comparing trains to planes is apples to oranges. Trains are much more comfortable, more convenient, more spacious, go from downtown to downtown, minimal security checks, capable of carrying lots more people, more efficiently, the list goes on.

And for those who say we can drive from LA to SF, sure we can. But many don't want to. I would much rather hop on a train.

It is time for the US to get caught up with Europe, we are decades behind them in mass transit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Unit74]

Where do you think the money for the high speed rail from one sht hole to another is being funded from? You can thank Moonbeam and DiFi for fleecing their pockets on that one.

After 36 years, I wised up and took my AMUs to somewhere with more common sense. But Cali has that good weather, right?

 

[Gary F]

Comparing trains to planes is apples to oranges. Trains are much more comfortable, more convenient, more spacious, go from downtown to downtown, minimal security checks, capable of carrying lots more people, more efficiently, the list goes on.

And for those who say we can drive from LA to SF, sure we can. But many don't want to. I would much rather hop on a train.

That's great as long as the project is self sufficient and they don't tax schmucks like me in rural Michigan to pay for the construction or operation.

It is time for the US to get caught up with Europe, we are decades behind them in mass transit.

That's true but they also have a much higher population density compared to the US. I enjoyed traveling around Germany on trains and buses.

 

[Bill]

Of course the consumer pays for the penalty to the oil company and the poorest drivers have experience the greatest impact.

The extreme regressive nature of a tax like this cracks me up, especially as they mostly come from the Democratic party, the supposed champions of the common man.

 

[jsstevens]

I think a better idea is to bring the tax out into the open. It is hidden, so consumers don't really understand why they are paying more than say Texans are. I think that just as food producers are now required to label their products with nutritional values, I think gasoline retailers should be required to post the taxes at the pump in a highly visible way. We currently pay an .18 cent highway tax per gallon. This new carbon tax will likely equal that very soon and could well exceed it in the near future. Californians need to be slapped in the face with where their money is going.

It is entirely possible (I don't know if it's true or not) that it is illegal for the gas stations to publish the tax portion. It is illegal according to the ACA for insurance companies to itemize the tax burden on insurance premiums.

John

 

[jsstevens]

Comparing trains to planes is apples to oranges. [snip], minimal security checks, [snip]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This will be true until somebody gets on one and detonates a bomb. A bomb blast on a train traveling 200+ MPH will be enough to demand security from TSA, I suspect.

Otherwise, yes.

John

 

[dans2992]

Europe has a good train system, but ironically it's often more expensive than flying!

 

[Unit74]

Europe has a good train system, but ironically it's often more expensive than flying!

Just wait till you can use EBT cards to buy your discounted fare, subsidized of course by those who actually PAY taxes. It will be uber cheap to get that meth and weed from here to there..... Same day delivery on bulk orders!!

 

[Art VanDelay]

California - love the climate but can stand the politics !

 

[Dav8or]

Comparing trains to planes is apples to oranges. Trains are much more comfortable, more convenient, more spacious, go from downtown to downtown, minimal security checks, capable of carrying lots more people, more efficiently, the list goes on.

And for those who say we can drive from LA to SF, sure we can. But many don't want to. I would much rather hop on a train.

It is time for the US to get caught up with Europe, we are decades behind them in mass transit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do realize that the long lines at the airport with us disrobing and emptying our pockets is the work of the Transportation Safety Administration, not the Aviation Safety Administration, right? So when people are riding trains up and down California by the millions every year, do you think it will be as easy as Amtrak is now? I seriously doubt it. Same lines, same hassles.

The projected cost to ride this modern marvel is said to be higher than what the airlines now charge. So even with the security headaches at the airport, I bet the plane gets there faster and cheaper. I doubt we'll ever know. I doubt this train will be fully completed. Eventually Californians will figure out the swindle and the huge money hole this is.

There is a very good reason high speed rail was never built here. We have a mature and robust air transportation system instead. Trains were ditched by the people decades ago. They voted with their pocketbook.

 

[Sam D]

This would never have happened if we had 6 California's!

 

[RalphInCA]

That's true but they also have a much higher population density compared to the US. I enjoyed traveling around Germany on trains and buses.

I'd say the population density in California, especially Western California (where this train is being built) is pretty similar to that of Europe.

 

[PaulS]

If the oil companies had a bit of collective scrotal weight, they'd simply stop shipping fuel to California for a while and let the citizens take it up with their elected officials.

Rich

Why would the oil companies do that? They are not going to lose a dime, this is on the citizens of the people's republic of California, they voted it in, they will be paying for it.

 

[sferguson524]

Where do you think the money for the high speed rail from one sht hole to another is being funded from? You can thank Moonbeam and DiFi for fleecing their pockets on that one.

After 36 years, I wised up and took my AMUs to somewhere with more common sense. But Cali has that good weather, right?

We have good weather in Vegas... and a lot less libtards

 

[Dav8or]

We have good weather in Vegas... and a lot less libtards

Ummm... last time I looked all your libtards where in Vegas and Nevada as a state was turning a pretty shade of blue. I would not move to Nevada to escape the "progressive" tide.

 

[Dav8or]

Why would the oil companies do that? They are not going to lose a dime, this is on the citizens of the people's republic of California, they voted it in, they will be paying for it.

True. The tax is passed on. If gasoline volumes go down, they will just raise the cost to make up their lost profits. California has a unique formulation of gasoline, so it isn't practical to try to import it. The oil companies will get their profit on gas one way or another.

 

[Henning]

I ma pretty sure someone is already making a tidy profit on these credits, and it's not mother nature!

There are plenty of profits to be made, and we can make them.

 

[Mason]

We have good weather in Vegas... and a lot less libtards

Like the guy from Searchlight?

 

[Henning]

We have good weather in Vegas... and a lot less libtards

Good weather and Vegas is not a concept with which I am familiar.

 

[poadeleted21]

We have good weather in Vegas... and a lot less libtards

Ha got Harry Reid though. Vegas is home to the King.

 

[Dav8or]

This would never have happened if we had 6 California's!

True. However, I have to say that the "6 Californias" initiative is kind of poorly thought out and doesn't serve the people of California very well, both Democrat and Republican. The map of the "6 Californias" is politically motivated and not populous motivated. It is designed to break California as a political power house, not to serve the will and desires of the Californian people. This is why it will never be a reality.

IMO, California could be broken into two, or four states, make sense and perhaps make everybody happy for a time... until everyone realized that the "blue" Californian states would still be dominating US politics and the "red" California states would be on par with Idaho and Montana in relevance.

 

[Henning]

Three California's is all it takes, split it to the central range at Morrow Bay into N Coastal, south coastal, and Agricultural Valley carved out of the east-central region with a corridor from the border for all the labor to migrate through.

 

[Jumpmaster]

Washington is next. Our Governor has just proposed a carbon tax primarily on gas. Patterned somewhat after our friends to the North in British Columbia who have had a carbon tax for a few years, it would raise taxes on gas here around $.10 per gallon making Washington's gas tax close to the highest in all of the states. The irony is that Washington doesn't have a significant carbon problem as concluded by the Governor's task force supported by several studies including one by the U of W on climate. The state can fairly easily meet the propose EPA standards for 2030 unlike a lot of states. But carbon taxes in one form or another are popular with certain political parties and Left Coasters.

 

[Jay Honeck]

The extreme regressive nature of a tax like this cracks me up, especially as they mostly come from the Democratic party, the supposed champions of the common man.

Tip-toeing around the Spin Zone is fun!

The Dems have relied on the ignorance of their "common men" to keep them in office since (at least) the 1970s. If the "common man" voter ever figured out how many jobs these crazy environmental schemes had cost the "common men" (who used to be able to support a family with this thing called "work"), they would be shown the gallows.

But hey -- Chinese workers are certainly happy for the jobs.

 

[Dav8or]

Tip-toeing around the Spin Zone is fun!

The Dems have relied on the ignorance of their "common men" to keep them in office since (at least) the 1970s. If the "common man" voter ever figured out how many jobs these crazy environmental schemes had cost the "common men" (who used to be able to support a family with this thing called "work"), they would be shown the gallows.

But hey -- Chinese workers are certainly happy for the jobs.

I agree with your post to a degree, but if you think there is a way in hell that the workers and their unions could have ever competed with the conditions in China, your just... well it's not the Spin Zone.

Right now, as we type, the auto companies are chomping at the bit to move production and assembly to Mexico. Even in the "right to work states" in the South, it's not good enough. Entry level work there in those plants is about $12.50 an hour. In Mexico just across the border it is $2.50 an hour. Do you really think American workers would be willing to take that pay cut? Would you?

The only thing keeping them back is politics and the instability and corruption in Mexico. With NAFTA in place, it's all set for cheap assembly in Mexico. Ford already has a bunch of plants there. Anybody here notice any difference in retail sticker price? Nope. No benefit to consumers at all. Just as in the Apple example. These companies can easily afford American wages, they just don't want to. Hmmm... is this good for America?

 

[denverpilot]

California often reaps the results of their voter's stupidity.

This is not a surprise and not without a whole lot of precedent.

 

[warthog1984]

Tip-toeing around the Spin Zone is fun!

The Dems have relied on the ignorance of their "common men" to keep them in office since (at least) the 1970s. If the "common man" voter ever figured out how many jobs these crazy environmental schemes had cost the "common men" (who used to be able to support a family with this thing called "work"), they would be shown the gallows.

But hey -- Chinese workers are certainly happy for the jobs.

Says the man hiring foreign help for his US-based hotel.

Dear Kettle, this is Pot...