- ‹ previous
- 1527 of 2794
- next ›
Cap and Trade Revenue
This is from the budget outline released by the Obama administration on Thursday:
After enactment of the Budget, the Administration will work expeditiously with key stakeholders and Congress to develop an economy-wide emissions reduction program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions approximately 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020....
I wonder what their economic assumptions are here? Here's the revenue timeline, starting in 2012:
At first glance, this strikes me as odd. With only slight variations, it assumes $80 billion in revenue every year between 2012 and 2019. But that doesn't really make sense. What you normally expect with a carbon trading program is that you begin with a high cap (carbon emissions in 2012 will probably start out 10% higher than 2005 emissions) and then ratchet the cap down every year after that. As the cap goes down, the price of permits goes up. It's true that the number of permits goes down at the same time, but this shouldn't be enough to make up for the higher permit price. Overall, until the green technology buildout hits a critical mass, the revenue from the program should go up considerably over time.
But not in this one. I wonder why?
cap and trade revenue
Perhaps the thinking takes into account the economic viability of green technology as the cost of carbon emissions goes up. While per unit cost of carbon rises, the total revenue generated by the carbon stays flat because the amount of carbon released goes down.
I would think, from a political standpoint, it also makes sense to not use cap and trade in the budget as a "magic asterisk" to fill a budgetary hole. You don't want anyone accusing you of creating cap and trade primarily as an automatically increasing tax.
Wow, perhaps.
Wow, perhaps.
Perhaps Obama wanted to give
Perhaps Obama wanted to give himself an extra 30 days before being tagged with 'the worst President of all time'. It will take at least that long before people realize what a disaster this is.
NRDC thoughts
According to the NRDC Climate Center's legislative advocate, these numbers are slightly at odds with their own calculations. They believe revenues will rise over time, before falling in the long term. However, since this only shows the first 8 years, and there is a rise to be seen, it's not completely out of line either.
The other reason is that the amount of CO2 will fall and the price will rise, which will, to some extent, keep the total revenue fixed.
I think it is merely taking
tagged as:- solution
I think it is merely taking account of the fact that until the legislation is passed, any predictions are going to guestimates. Unless the budget office is told that the price of the permits is going to rise, they have to assume that they will not.
From a strategic point of view it will make it a little easier to negotiate spending cuts with congress. At the moment they are going through the budget line by line taking out the Republican corporate welfare that that was purchased from DeLay, Ney, Cunningham and the other corrupt GOP pols (i.e. every single one of them) in the DeLay years. But that is not going to cover the whole of the budget deficit.
The key to getting cost cuts out of Congress is to make the picture as bleak as possible. And since this is effectively a tax rise, the administration is going to want to make it appear as small as possible in the short term.
Although in this particular case, there is going to be much less opposition than the GOP and the climate-change denial lobby hope. The smart oil money has realized that renewables represent a huge opportunity for them. Detroit has to toe the administration line while it is on a lifeline. And there is a large and very right wing constituency that thinks climate change is rubbish but support the policy changes wholeheartedly because they are very worried about US dependence on Saudi oil.
Revenue -or spending?
I can't make sense of the captions. I thing these are spending programs, written as negative revenue. What is "dedicated to clean energy technology", that sounds like spending. More elusive "Making work pay". I can anly assume that is some sort of subsidy paid to either workers or employers, to either increase wages on the low end of the scale, or subsidize employers to increase hiring.
Am I totally missing something here?
revenue projections
Revenue projections depend on a few things.
First off, there's whether permits are auctioned or freely allocated. More free allocations means less revenue.
Second, there's the permit price issue. This is closely tied in with banking and borrowing, which would smooth out permit prices over time. It's also tied in with the number of permits (obviously). While having the cap get tighter over time is probably a good idea, their models might not have that happening until after 2019.
They're just being prudent
Kevin: I just think Obama is wisely being cautious with respect to revenue projections. Better a pleasant surprise in five years' time than the opposite. Having responsible and consciencious political leadership does take getting used to.
x333
this is to take the generic if you're pressed for cash and don't have any conditions that would require the newer formulation." This is exactly how I approach it in my practice. If a patient does not have adequate insurance coverage for Abraxane I will give generic paclitaxel. As you showed us, the survival is the same no matter which formulation of paclitaxel is used.cfrais
enmage
epson
kodisk
metato
ahhszd
gprekyba
vadven
fxwing
lolook
411to
uuwired
cufire
conden
bchour
fuband
cityfu
fuelf
uuburn
powerkoi
qwo
wer
to
for
live
woband
wopull
webnot
koinote
twomore
popeo
futureyuki
gugully
xiday
guclass
kucoast
xvxcv
国内格安航空券
葬儀 千葉
個別指導塾
多重債務
国際協力
人権問題
ブログアフィリエイト
会社設立
車 金融
アダルト
出会い
出会い
アダルト 出会い
出会い
ブログ型ホームペー
tagged as:- result
ブログ型ホームページ
名古屋 ホームページ制作
新設法人データ
税理士 名古屋
医療コンサルタント
会社設立 福岡
会社設立 大阪
会社設立 東京
会社設立 名古屋
会社設立 名古屋
会社設立 名古屋
給与計算 名古屋
名古屋 税理士
弁護士 名古屋
ベビーベッド
会社設立 名古屋市
厄除け
天然水
ちゃんこ鍋
税理士 名古屋
相続税
会社設立 名古屋
会社設立 大阪
不動産 販売代理
I would think, from a
tagged as:- solution
- result
I would think, from a political standpoint, it also makes sense to not use cap and trade in the budget as a "magic asterisk" to fill a budgetary hole. You don't want anyone accusing you of creating cap and trade primarily as an automatically increasing tax.tiffany jewelry
tiffany and co