Laughing City

What is cap & trade? Answer BEFORE lookng it up!
Cap & what?
5%
 5%  [ 1 ]
A bill that will put a cap on trade with other countries.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
A bill outlawing the trading of ballcaps.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
A new card game.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
An episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
A bill that will cap carbon emissions, rewarding businesses who are under the cap and penalizing those over the cap.
94%
 94%  [ 17 ]
Total Votes : 18

Author Message
jdstories
Vintage Newbie


I was listening to NPR, as I sometimes do, when I heard a story about how conservatives think cap & trade is a bad thing. No big news there.

However, when the journalist polled the people at a recent Republican gathering in Ohio the news ended up being that most people there didn't actually know what cap & trade is. One guy described it as a bill that would put a cap on trade. Is this guy really gonna vote?

Staying out of the politics behind the real bill, what is the deal with people voting on issues they know nothing about?

My question to you: Did you know what cap & trade was BEFORE you looked at this thread? Voting age only need respond. You understand why, I hope.

JD

_________________
"Well, hopefully that's our job, to strap rockets onto everything." - Adam Savage, Mythbusters
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 | Posts: 3655 | Location: Waterloo, Tejas
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Saellys
Vintage Newbie


I knew what it was beforehand because I watched this.

I'm honestly astonished that cap & trade would be put to a vote at all (if it has). America's involvement in climate change legislation has been such a mummer's farce, and it doesn't seem like they'd even bother letting the general, uninformed public vote on it. But then, maybe they would, knowing that it would probably be passed.

_________________
INTELLECT AND ROMANCE
OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM

Smokemonster
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
JBaker
Vintage Newbie


I'm pretty sure that most politicians don't know what they're voting on most of the time.
Of course the regular people don't.

Even when voting for president, I would wager that the vast majority of people know almost nothing about the candidate they vote for. They just know that the guy is a Republican, a Democrat, or black.

_________________
EvilSpace
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 | Posts: 2348 | Location: Plano, TX
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
sebas
Golly, Poster


Republicans are stupid?













_________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated"

-Mahatma, Gandhi
Joined: 02 Apr 2008 | Posts: 643 | Location: Austin, TX
View user's profile Send private message
uncreative
Vintage Newbie


Burn After Reading.

Oh wait, is this not the screen cap thread?
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 | Posts: 2890 | Location: Oregon
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jdstories
Vintage Newbie


Saellys wrote:
I knew what it was beforehand because I watched this.

I'm honestly astonished that cap & trade would be put to a vote at all (if it has). America's involvement in climate change legislation has been such a mummer's farce, and it doesn't seem like they'd even bother letting the general, uninformed public vote on it. But then, maybe they would, knowing that it would probably be passed.


Actually, the bill has stalled in the Senate, and I'm not aware of any plans to make it a referendum. What I found perplexing while watching your video was this: if cap and trade is going to be so great for big business, then why would Republicans be against it at all? The likely answer is two-fold: they need a democratic "machine" to rage against, and the issue is too complicated for most politicians to understand.

It seems as though the idea behind cap and trade is sound, but the loopholes in the legislation at this juncture are too numerous. For me, better to get the ball rolling and work out the kinks later. Otherwise, if you wait too long the window of opportunity may pass to get any sort of legislation enacted. Then where would we be?

JD

_________________
"Well, hopefully that's our job, to strap rockets onto everything." - Adam Savage, Mythbusters
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 | Posts: 3655 | Location: Waterloo, Tejas
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
freakinalex
Lost at Forum


I kinda knew what it was at one point from a debate round, but damned if I remember.
_________________
Do I even need a signature anymore?
Joined: 02 Jul 2008 | Posts: 1403 | Location: Texas
View user's profile Send private message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


uncreative wrote:
Burn After Reading.

Oh wait, is this not the screen cap thread?
Laughing

Ah... Ohio decided the 2004 election remember??? Lebron just bailed on them, so they're in mourning, cut em' some slack Razz

I think part of the problem is Political Nomenclature. If they'd asked the same folks "Do you believe what all the tree huggers say about global warming, and if it merits some laws?" you would have got a better idea of why they could care less what the law is about.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9596 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DRMS_7888
Vintage Newbie


Climate change/peak oil is a big picture, long term problem. Long term problems don't get dealt with very effectively in American politics. It's much easier to get reelected if you vote for bills that affect current issues, rather than future issues. It seems as if American political reactionary voting isn't able to look more than a few days into the future.
_________________
EisleyForever wrote:
you're A-list in my heart!


MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
mikep0922
Lost at Forum


Annie Leonards' piece was very revealing! The Cap and Trade reminds me of the CAFE standards for the auto industry, where a company could produce a gas guzzler as long as they off set it with a vehicle that got high gas milage! Still I suppose it worked in the sense that MPG has increased across the board! However, the high price of gas of late, could have contributed to that as much or more than the legislation!
_________________
Mike=]
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 | Posts: 1453 | Location: Orlando, Florida
View user's profile Send private message
do not be afraid.
Lost at Forum


as a Republican (well, technically, at least), i know exactly what “Cap and Trade” is, and still very much opposite it, because:

1. i don't believe the government has the right to tell individuals, organizations or corporations how much they can or cannot emit, nor to create an artificial “market” to buy and sell “credits” to “allow” people to emit more or “profit” from emitting less.

2. I don't believe the purpose of this policy is emissions reduction, but, rather, revenue generation to support our seemingly endless and unsustainable expansion of government power (see point 4.)

3. i believe the economic burden of this policy — assuming it has severe enough restrictions and punishments to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses (see point 4) and/or increase government revenues (see point 2) — has the potential to be disastrous to our economy, especially those individuals less able to deal with the increased cost of energy (the working poor, small businesses, etc.)

4. in countries where it has been tried, it has consistently failed to actually achieve it's stated goal of emissions reduction. of course, politicians in those countries — and others supportive of their policies — use the excuse that “it would be worse if we did nothing”, or “it would get better if only we did more”, which is based purely on faith in their own political beliefs, not facts. as for my own political beliefs, see points 1, 2 and 3.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group