Idiots still giving public money away to help an ideology

[Robert A Whit]

Tesla Motors Makes Millions with Pollution Credits (http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/03/tesla-motors-makes-millions-with-pollution-credits/)

<tbody>
ValueWalk
- ‎Mar 8, 2013‎

<tbody>

















</tbody>


</tbody>

Today The Wall Street Journal reports that about 10 percent ofTesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA)'s revenue last year was made by selling credits earned from various states to competing automakers.

[fj1200]

It's not their fault for taking advantage of stupid legislators.


Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) delivered fewer than 3,000 vehicles last year, so it doesn’t have to meet the standards because it doesn’t sell enough vehicles. However, it still earns pollution credits with every vehicle it sells.

[fj1200]

Idiots still giving public money away to help an ideology

Actually now that I think about it they're probably not giving away public money. They just created a method to transfer pollution rights from a "dirty" automaker to a "clean" automaker in exchange for money.

[logroller]

Fwiw, Tesla is an electric car company; so even if it met the production threshold, it would in all likelihood meet the standards...and major automakers qualify for those credits, they just make more money cranking out gas guzzlers and borrowing from the public coffers in tough times. Whether of not cafe standards are the most effective mechanism for abating pollution is a worthy debate; but it's not merely an "ideology" at issue here. The pollution generated by automobiles has real effects upon the environment and health. If I piped diesel exhaust into Robert's house, I doubt he would be so dismissive of the issue as ideological.

[Robert A Whit]

Actually now that I think about it they're probably not giving away public money. They just created a method to transfer pollution rights from a "dirty" automaker to a "clean" automaker in exchange for money.

Tessla made money off false ideology. No improvement to the environment, merely a tax dodge to keep doing what they were doing.

[logroller]

Actually now that I think about it they're probably not giving away public money. They just created a method to transfer pollution rights from a "dirty" automaker to a "clean" automaker in exchange for money.
... property rights in pollution? Sounds like one of those pothead conservative theories.:poke:

The coase theory paints Pigou as quite the burner...see: train analogy
Makes me wonder about the "crop" being burned. :laugh2:
Perhaps big pharma should be paying marijuana growers not to plant.

[DragonStryk72]

Tessla made money off false ideology. No improvement to the environment, merely a tax dodge to keep doing what they were doing.

You realize they specifically make electric cars, meaning zero fossil fuel use or emission right? thats why they're named after tesla, like the coil.

[Robert A Whit]

You realize they specifically make electric cars, meaning zero fossil fuel use or emission right? thats why they're named after tesla, like the coil.

Driving it is not pollution free when you account for the production of the electricity. Driving it does not mean all processes to make said car are pollution free.

The idea here is that Tessla collected an award. It seems dumb to award a company that makes a car using pollution means.

I first became aware of Tessla around 1952 in high school. I have long admired his accomplishments.

[fj1200]

Tessla made money off false ideology. No improvement to the environment, merely a tax dodge to keep doing what they were doing.

You'll have to be more specific on the false ideology; pollution is a reality though I'm sure we could argue specifics around how best to address it. And FWIW, I don't think it's a tax dodge; I'm sure it's general revenue that would be taxable if profitable.


... property rights in pollution? Sounds like one of those pothead conservative theories.:poke:

The coase theory paints Pigou as quite the burner...see: train analogy
Makes me wonder about the "crop" being burned. :laugh2:
Perhaps big pharma should be paying marijuana growers not to plant.

Actually it is a conservative method of dealing with pollution but of course you knew that. Now am I going to really have to google that stuff? :slap:

[Kathianne]

You realize they specifically make electric cars, meaning zero fossil fuel use or emission right? thats why they're named after tesla, like the coil.

Hmmm:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html


March 11, 2013, 10:14 a.m. ET <!-- ID: SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472 --> <!-- TYPE: Commentary (U.S.) --> <!-- DISPLAY-NAME: Opinion --> <!-- PUBLICATION: The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition --> <!-- DATE: 2013-03-11 10:14 --> <!-- COPYRIGHT: Dow Jones & Company, Inc. --> <!-- ORIGINAL-ID: --> <!-- article start --> <!-- CODE=COMPANY SYMBOL=TSLA CODE=DJII-COMPANY SYMBOL=cococn CODE=DJII-COMPANY SYMBOL=fskrai CODE=DJII-COMPANY SYMBOL=teslmi CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=FISKER.XX CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=I/AUT CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=N/CDJ CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=N/EDC CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=N/EDI CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=N/ENV CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=N/INT CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/NME CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/US CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=TSLA CODE=DJII-INDUSTRY SYMBOL=i351 CODE=DJII-INDUSTRY SYMBOL=i35104 CODE=DJII-INDUSTRY SYMBOL=iaut CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=namz CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=usa CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gcat CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gclimt CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=genv CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gglobe CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gwea CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=ncat CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=nedi CODE=PERSON SYMBOL=Mr. Lomborg CODE=PERSON SYMBOL=Obama CODE=RELAY SYMBOL=SYND CODE=STATISTIC SYMBOL=FREE CODE=SUBJECT SYMBOL=ONEW CODE=SUBJECT SYMBOL=OPIN COMPANY TSLA COMPANY|TSLA NAME Tesla Motors SIGNIFICANCE PASSING-MENTION PERSON Obama PERSON|Obama NAME Obama SIGNIFICANCE PASSING-MENTION --> Bjorn Lomborg: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret

Producing and charging electric cars means heavy carbon-dioxide emissions.<!-- end module saveToArtMini-collapsed -->



<!-- http://www.wallstreetjournal.de http://online.wsj.com --> By Bjorn Lomborg

Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. Consumers remain wary of the cars' limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.
For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.


A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

...

[logroller]

Tessla made money off false ideology. No improvement to the environment, merely a tax dodge to keep doing what they were doing.

The only false ideology is that pollution lacks private liabilities. Its that liability which is transferred to tesla in lieu of their own right to emit pollution.
Given the scope of pollution to the tune of billions of Gallons of fuel burned, perhaps its not an appreciable improvement, but environmental damages are real and electric cars make up what, .001% of vehicle miles driven? How much do you expect it could help? You seem to operate under the false assumption that market is perfect, that transaction costs are negligible and externalities are just an ideological construct of government. Read up on Pigou and Ronald Coase. Your ideology that government out of the market delivers the best solution is a far more flawed ideology than government can do it better through taxation. I'm not even saying that these emissions market offsets and credits are perfectly efficient, they aren't, only that its more efficient than unmitigated pollution due to the unrealized liability for social costs--something I've yet to see you present a solution for.
So, pray tell, what is your proposed solution to pollution?

Just by way of example, Aside from biennial certification or otherwise as req. by law, When was the last time you had your car smogged? Or when was the last time that, after having it pass, you inquired as to how you could lower the emissions further? When was the last time you went to the residents along a major thoroughfare that you travel and asked about how you could help compensate them for their children's asthma? And quite frankly, even if you did, how much of an impact would that really make in the environment and public health at large? "Oh well, somebody else's problem. Not gonna give into that liberal ideology that my actions affect others." :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

So, pray tell, what is your proposed solution to pollution?

Dilution. ;)

[logroller]

Dilution. ;)
...Says the guy upwind.:shitfan:

[fj1200]

And upstream. :)

[Robert A Whit]

The only false ideology is that pollution lacks private liabilities. Its that liability which is transferred to tesla in lieu of their own right to emit pollution.
Given the scope of pollution to the tune of billions of Gallons of fuel burned, perhaps its not an appreciable improvement, but environmental damages are real and electric cars make up what, .001% of vehicle miles driven? How much do you expect it could help? You seem to operate under the false assumption that market is perfect, that transaction costs are negligible and externalities are just an ideological construct of government. Read up on Pigou and Ronald Coase. Your ideology that government out of the market delivers the best solution is a far more flawed ideology than government can do it better through taxation. I'm not even saying that these emissions market offsets and credits are perfectly efficient, they aren't, only that its more efficient than unmitigated pollution due to the unrealized liability for social costs--something I've yet to see you present a solution for.
So, pray tell, what is your proposed solution to pollution?

Just by way of example, Aside from biennial certification or otherwise as req. by law, When was the last time you had your car smogged? Or when was the last time that, after having it pass, you inquired as to how you could lower the emissions further? When was the last time you went to the residents along a major thoroughfare that you travel and asked about how you could help compensate them for their children's asthma? And quite frankly, even if you did, how much of an impact would that really make in the environment and public health at large? "Oh well, somebody else's problem. Not gonna give into that liberal ideology that my actions affect others." :rolleyes:

No, the false ideology is that the public use of funds to fight off pollution, if done at all, should go to the polluters who only get rewards for stopping. Tesla merely took advantage of some sort of market that ought to not have been created by government.

This country cleaned up much pollution and did not pay companies like Tesla or create a law so they got paid so stick to the polluters. Tesla managed to hand a waiver of pollution to some company.

It reminds me of paying some convicted bank robber money so he won't rob banks.

[fj1200]

No, the false ideology is that the public use of funds to fight off pollution, if done at all, should go to the polluters who only get rewards for stopping. Tesla merely took advantage of some sort of market that ought to not have been created by government.

This country cleaned up much pollution and did not pay companies like Tesla or create a law so they got paid so stick to the polluters. Tesla managed to hand a waiver of pollution to some company.

It reminds me of paying some convicted bank robber money so he won't rob banks.

But there was no public use of funds. This is similar to how the electric generation companies cleaned up the SOx emissions. Given a pollution allowance that are able to be traded allows cleaner companies to profit and dirtier companies the time to clean up. It's an effective method of fixing the pollution problem, the argument left is effectiveness and necessity.

[Robert A Whit]

But there was no public use of funds. This is similar to how the electric generation companies cleaned up the SOx emissions. Given a pollution allowance that are able to be traded allows cleaner companies to profit and dirtier companies the time to clean up. It's an effective method of fixing the pollution problem, the argument left is effectiveness and necessity.

Tesla paid no federal taxes on profits. Had they not swapped, they owed a tax debt. I accept you make those claims. I don't know if said claims are accurate as to what happened and why.

[logroller]

No, the false ideology is that the public use of funds to fight off pollution, if done at all, should go to the polluters who only get rewards for stopping. Tesla merely took advantage of some sort of market that ought to not have been created by government.

This country cleaned up much pollution and did not pay companies like Tesla or create a law so they got paid so stick to the polluters. Tesla managed to hand a waiver of pollution to some company.

It reminds me of paying some convicted bank robber money so he won't rob banks.
Emissions credits aren't public funds. No more than a stock market is a public fund. It's a mechanism of trade. Please, show where the public treasury is paying tesla out of income taxes or some such. People buy a big car with a huge engine and pay a tax for that right to pollute; if somebody sells a car which doesn't pollute, they get that credit. It's a pretty simple transaction that minimizes the transaction costs of the market that, in most cases, involve the government as a market regulator. Your so-called alternative is a pigouvian tax that has been shown to place an unrealistic information burden upon regulators, which is prone to failure. The simplicity of pigouvian taxes has some successes, like deposits on recyclable containers, but such isn't feasible for particulate matter. And did I understand you correctly, your stated that the country cleaned up pollution without creating a law...are you that clueless? The clean water act, clean air act, comprehensive environmental response and cleanup act (CERCLA) ??? What were those do you think, public service announcements?
As for bank robbers getting paid not to rob banks, that's just what your reward to polluters for for not polluting is. My solution is to charge every bank robber and use the funds to design banks that are harder to rob. Regardless, your analogy misses the mark. A better comparison would be if banks paid a fine or tax that could be recouped if they showed that they had the recommended reserves on hand. So analogies aside, your so called reward to polluters for not polluting is riddled with unanswered questions, like who pays who not to pollute? Where do those funds come from and who decides what pollution is worth; the government alone, or is there a marketability to those emissions?
Tesla could produce cars that emit emissions, but do not. Major Car makers could produce cars that do not emit pollutants, but do not. I contend that automakers are paying tesla not to pollute, so that they can pollute more and that pollution, where necessary, is put to the highest and best use.

[DragonStryk72]

Hmmm:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html
vs the production and fuel of consumption of combustion cars, there's no challenge there.
Those stats also do not take into account in the impact of the increasing amount of power being gotten from solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear power sources, all of which can reduce or do away the carbon emissions in post-production.

unless you're talking about doing away with cars in total, then production is always going to engender some emissions, and thus can't be used in any reasonable argument against electric vehicle.

[logroller]

Tesla paid no federal taxes on profits. Had they not swapped, they owed a tax debt. I accept you make those claims. I don't know if said claims are accurate as to what happened and why.
It'd b like if you had a tax that pays for a given water allotment for your property based on the amount of land you have. You could use that all for yourself, after all, you paid taxes on it-- or, you could sell that water to your neighbor. if its worth more to your neighbor than you, you'd sell it. Or maybe you'd install some specialized irrigation system and sell the remainder; there's a number of options...but its you and your neighbor who work that out, not a command and control one size fits all public rule. The difference is water can be piped your house to your neighbors; what if you want to sell your water allotment out of state?

[Robert A Whit]

Emissions credits aren't public funds. No more than a stock market is a public fund. It's a mechanism of trade. Please, show where the public treasury is paying tesla out of income taxes or some such. People buy a big car with a huge engine and pay a tax for that right to pollute; if somebody sells a car which doesn't pollute, they get that credit. It's a pretty simple transaction that minimizes the transaction costs of the market that, in most cases, involve the government as a market regulator. Your so-called alternative is a pigouvian tax that has been shown to place an unrealistic information burden upon regulators, which is prone to failure. The simplicity of pigouvian taxes has some successes, like deposits on recyclable containers, but such isn't feasible for particulate matter. And did I understand you correctly, your stated that the country cleaned up pollution without creating a law...are you that clueless? The clean water act, clean air act, comprehensive environmental response and cleanup act (CERCLA) ??? What were those do you think, public service announcements?
As for bank robbers getting paid not to rob banks, that's just what your reward to polluters for for not polluting is. My solution is to charge every bank robber and use the funds to design banks that are harder to rob. Regardless, your analogy misses the mark. A better comparison would be if banks paid a fine or tax that could be recouped if they showed that they had the recommended reserves on hand. So analogies aside, your so called reward to polluters for not polluting is riddled with unanswered questions, like who pays who not to pollute? Where do those funds come from and who decides what pollution is worth; the government alone, or is there a marketability to those emissions?
Tesla could produce cars that emit emissions, but do not. Major Car makers could produce cars that do not emit pollutants, but do not. I contend that automakers are paying tesla not to pollute, so that they can pollute more and that pollution, where necessary, is put to the highest and best use.

These credits save companies money. Why?

How?

Oh about Tesla. The reason Tesla did this was to collect a lot of money. I expect if you examine that, you will probably see they saved income taxes.

So now you admit the country created law to clean up pollution?

Actually that is correct. I am not sure of what my exact words were but for some odd reason you seem to be a big government sort of person.

These central planned economies is what the Soviets practiced.

[Robert A Whit]

Hmmm:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html

Thank you for exposing electric automobiles.





March 11, 2013, 10:14 a.m. ET Bjorn Lomborg: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret

Producing and charging electric cars means heavy carbon-dioxide emissions.



By Bjorn Lomborg

Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. Consumers remain wary of the cars' limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.
For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.


A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

Thanks to Kathianne for the useful argument above.

The thing is, it is time to expose carbon credits as what they really are.

Company A wants to pollute a lot. They want to expand pollution.

Solution?

Find some operation not polluting, pay them a fee and keep right on polluting.

Carbon credits are falling like a rock.

4675

[logroller]

These credits save companies money. Why?

How?

Oh about Tesla. The reason Tesla did this was to collect a lot of money. I expect if you examine that, you will probably see they saved income taxes.

So now you admit the country created law to clean up pollution?

Actually that is correct. I am not sure of what my exact words were but for some odd reason you seem to be a big government sort of person.

These central planned economies is what the Soviets practiced.
I'm not big government; but I'm no anarchist either. Economies exist due to the inevitable burden of imperfect information. People don't buy a car with a sticker in the window that says "this vehicle includes a tax for 3.2 doctors visits brought on by the estimated particulate pollution attributable to this vehicle." Why? Because who the hell knows how much that exact vehicle will cause. But we do know that particulate pollution causes asthma and areas with high amounts of traffic have higher amounts of particulate matter. That is a social cost, and one which auto manufacturers long failed to pay. This is referred to as an externality; in this case, a negative one. To abate this externality, regulators originally placed restrictions and or taxes upon those products with the understanding that regulators knew what the cost was and would apply it as necessary. This turned out to be unrealistic, for the same reason that a vehicle tax for each specific downstream effect can not be accounted for, because so much money needs to be committed to accountability that the financial burden to attain the information renders most any tax-based solution not feasible. So instead, what they derived was system of allowing those who pollute to police themselves, allowing them to pollute a certain amount only and verify themselves that the target is met instead of paying some govt employee to. And with the added financial incentive of being able to sell any unused pollution, they want to reduce their pollution so that they can make money. Or, if they make more money polluting more, they'll buy someone else's unused permit. Look up Pigou, Coase.

[Robert A Whit]

I'm not big government; but I'm no anarchist either. Economies exist due to the inevitable burden of imperfect information. People don't buy a car with a sticker in the window that says "this vehicle includes a tax for 3.2 doctors visits brought on by the estimated particulate pollution attributable to this vehicle." Why? Because who the hell knows how much that exact vehicle will cause. But we do know that particulate pollution causes asthma and areas with high amounts of traffic have higher amounts of particulate matter. That is a social cost, and one which auto manufacturers long failed to pay. This is referred to as an externality; in this case, a negative one. To abate this externality, regulators originally placed restrictions and or taxes upon those products with the understanding that regulators knew what the cost was and would apply it as necessary. This turned out to be unrealistic, for the same reason that a vehicle tax for each specific downstream effect can not be accounted for, because so much money needs to be committed to accountability that the financial burden to attain the information renders most any tax-based solution not feasible. So instead, what they derived was system of allowing those who pollute to police themselves, allowing them to pollute a certain amount only and verify themselves that the target is met instead of paying some govt employee to. And with the added financial incentive of being able to sell any unused pollution, they want to reduce their pollution so that they can make money. Or, if they make more money polluting more, they'll buy someone else's unused permit. Look up Pigou, Coase.

Saying one is no anarchist is no red badge of courage given you live some of your life as one anyway. For instance, you can rob the cash from the store cash register. Do you stop only because of some law or as an anarchist do you simply do the proper thing and not rob the store?

Look, the only thing I can figure is that you like the idea of carbon credits.

They are as if the company printed currency and gave them as payment to some other company.

They are an incentive to pollute given big polluter now has a way to off set his pollution by merely handing his problem to company B.

They are phony wealth. Nothing like this lasts too long then the Feds take charge.

[logroller]

Thank you for exposing electric automobiles.






Thanks to Kathianne for the useful argument above.

The thing is, it is time to expose carbon credits as what they really are.

Company A wants to pollute a lot. They want to expand pollution.

Solution?

Find some operation not polluting, pay them a fee and keep right on polluting.

Carbon credits are falling like a rock.

4675
Worldwide trade of pollution permits is plagued by excessive transaction costs; thus less trading takes place, and lower prices. That's what my senior thesis was about. Do you understand that every decision, even inaction, has a cost? There's no perfect solution, only better ones.

[Robert A Whit]

In California's first auction of greenhouse gas pollution credits, companies paid just a few cents more than the minimum price per ton of carbon, generating almost $290 million from the sale held last week.
The state Air Resources Board announced Monday that it sold all 23.1 million allowances available for 2013 at $10.09 each, generating $233.3 million. The minimum price was $10.

[Robert A Whit]

Worldwide trade of pollution permits is plagued by excessive transaction costs; thus less trading takes place, and lower prices. That's what my senior thesis was about. Do you understand that every decision, even inaction, has a cost? There's no perfect solution, only better ones.

Yes I do. Take note of how California took over the market in this state.

[logroller]

Saying one is no anarchist is no red badge of courage given you live some of your life as one anyway. For instance, you can rob the cash from the store cash register. Do you stop only because of some law or as an anarchist do you simply do the proper thing and not rob the store?

Look, the only thing I can figure is that you like the idea of carbon credits.

They are as if the company printed currency and gave them as payment to some other company.

They are an incentive to pollute given big polluter now has a way to off set his pollution by merely handing his problem to company B.

They are phony wealth. Nothing like this lasts too long then the Feds take charge.
Uh. This thread is about electric cars, cafe standards and the market exchange among auto manufacturers. Where did i mention anything about carbon? If you read back, youll find i specifically mentioned particulates. Instead you offer strawman after strawman-- some hubbub about bank robbers and knocking over cash checking places. Get a clue dude-- EMISSION IS NOT A CRIME!!! Some pollution is inevitable; not all, but some. You just want it to be black and white...well ok-- driving your car kills children. So by arguing against cafe standards, youre advocating for the deaths of thousands of children. Ooh geez-- you're a child murderer-- now that's not much of a red badge of courage ...' not so fun to get painted with a false brush is it? And btw, this credit system only works when there's a cap. So that company a plus company b cannot exceed a given amount; whoever provides the greatest benefit for any given amount of pollution not to exceed the cap does so. the problem with global trading is who is the central authority? The cost to build a firm without a strong central regulator is cost-prohibitive. This isn't even new really; the sixties brought a out the theory and as early as the lead phaseout and sox and nox reduction (acid rain) there has been significant real-world experience with the fact market trading of pollution works. It's more difficult with mobile sources though and, unlike lead phaseout there's no like replacement. Electric cars perform the same as their internal combustion counterparts. The answer will end being less cars/less miles driven. How that will be accomplished is a worthwhile debate. Believing that internal combustion cars aren't really a problem is just plain nutty.

Whats your economic experience? You've heard of Keynes I hope, but economic study has continued. I'm telling you, look up Coase and social cost; I'm quite surpised you haven't heard of him already given your claims of extensive understanding of climate change. Let me know when you want to have a civil conversation.

[logroller]

Yes I do. Take note of how California took over the market in this state.
What market was that? Reclaim? Sb375? Ab32? I'm quite familiar with all of them and the various interrelation between other like CEQA and regulatory authorities like calEPA, CARB etc. you'll have to be more specific than CA air markets.

[Robert A Whit]

Uh. This thread is about electric cars, cafe standards and the market exchange among auto manufacturers. Where did i mention anything about carbon? If you read back, youll find i specifically mentioned particulates. Instead you offer strawman after strawman-- some hubbub about bank robbers and knocking over cash checking places. Get a clue dude-- EMISSION IS NOT A CRIME!!! Some pollution is inevitable; not all, but some. You just want it to be black and white...well ok-- driving your car kills children. So by arguing against cafe standards, youre advocating for the deaths of thousands of children. Ooh geez-- you're a child murderer-- now that's not much of a red badge of courage ...' not so fun to get painted with a false brush is it? And btw, this credit system only works when there's a cap. So that company a plus company b cannot exceed a given amount; whoever provides the greatest benefit for any given amount of pollution not to exceed the cap does so. the problem with global trading is who is the central authority? The cost to build a firm without a strong central regulator is cost-prohibitive. This isn't even new really; the sixties brought a out the theory and as early as the lead phaseout and sox and nox reduction (acid rain) there has been significant real-world experience with the fact market trading of pollution works. It's more difficult with mobile sources though and, unlike lead phaseout there's no like replacement. Electric cars perform the same as their internal combustion counterparts. The answer will end being less cars/less miles driven. How that will be accomplished is a worthwhile debate. Believing that internal combustion cars aren't really a problem is just plain nutty.

Whats your economic experience? You've heard of Keynes I hope, but economic study has continued. I'm telling you, look up Coase and social cost; I'm quite surpised you haven't heard of him already given your claims of extensive understanding of climate change. Let me know when you want to have a civil conversation.

Keynes is very familiar to me. I did look up your citation "Coase" and am wondering how this came up. I think my issue was that Tesla turned non carbon production into a profit.

I don't agree with that at all.

Fully electric cars don't match all that the internal combustion autos can do. Range being a prime problem then the IC auto fuels up in moments. It takes hours to recharge fully electric cars.

I am civil. Believing the electric car is no problem is nutty.

[logroller]

Keynes is very familiar to me. I did look up your citation "Coase" and am wondering how this came up. I think my issue was that Tesla turned non carbon production into a profit.

I don't agree with that at all.

Fully electric cars don't match all that the internal combustion autos can do. Range being a prime problem then the IC auto fuels up in moments. It takes hours to recharge fully electric cars.

I am civil. Believing the electric car is no problem is nutty.
As to the bold; I know; one such thing that IC autos do is emit massive amounts of pollutants that cause significant health hazards. Ever read prop 65?

Please cite your reference that Tesla's tax credit was the result of non-carbon production. I assure you, it was not--we dont have a federal carbon tax. Carbon credits are widely encompassing metric for pollution of many types. It's long been my assertion that when you find carbon being emitted, you'll find environmental damages. Of course, you'll also find economic benefits. Finding the best market mix that balances good and bad is a necessary evil that requires ease of quantification and tradability. While some suggest that a federal carbon tax could be effective, I do not agree. I believe that transaction costs at the federal level would negate the benefits; and that regional trading is the best structure for emissions trading.

[Robert A Whit]

As to the bold; I know; one such thing that IC autos do is emit massive amounts of pollutants that cause significant health hazards. Ever read prop 65?

Please cite your reference that Tesla's tax credit was the result of non-carbon production. I assure you, it was not--we dont have a federal carbon tax. Carbon credits are widely encompassing metric for pollution of many types. It's long been my assertion that when you find carbon being emitted, you'll find environmental damages. Of course, you'll also find economic benefits. Finding the best market mix that balances good and bad is a necessary evil that requires ease of quantification and tradability. While some suggest that a federal carbon tax could be effective, I do not agree. I believe that transaction costs at the federal level would negate the benefits; and that regional trading is the best structure for emissions trading.

Not in CA they don't. I can only speak for California. I also know that our cars are virtually non polluting and the small amount of pollution can be ignored. As to your tax issue, I must check first. California is in the Carbon credit business.I posted proof of such. Carbon dioxide, a well known plant food is emitted. I don't suppose you studied it should feed many more plants???

I prefer that carbon credits are eliminated.

[Robert A Whit]

www.arb.ca.gov


PO BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO CA 9
5
812 (800) 242
-
4450


REVISED 0





March 1, 2013



As of the bid guarantee deadline of February 27th, 2013, no covered entities or

opt in entities had indicated an intent to bid at the March 2013 reserve sale


and provided a bid guarantee.


Therefore, the Air Resources Board will not be holding
the reserve sale scheduled for March 8, 2013.

The next reserve sale is scheduled for June 27, 2013. A notice for that reserve

sale will be posted approximately 30 days prior to the scheduled date. All
allowances for the March 2013 reserve sale will be made available at the June
2013 reserve sale.


Background:

The California Cap
-
and
-
Trade Program includes an Allowance Price
Containment Reserve available to California covered entities and opt-

in covered entities in quarterly reserve sales. More information about the reserve sales can

be found at:http://www.arb

.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auction/auction.htm
.



For further information about reserve sales, please contact Mr.

Chuck Seidler at
cseidler@arb.ca.gov or (916) 324
-
0931.


For questions regarding the California GHG Cap
-
and
-
Trade Program, please
contact the California Air Resources Board at (916) 322
-
2037. For more
inf
ormation on the California Cap
-
and
-
Trade Program, please go to:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm
.




California Environmental Protection
Agency

| AIR RESOURCES BOARD

[logroller]

Not in CA they don't. I can only speak for California. I also know that our cars are virtually non polluting and the small amount of pollution can be ignored. As to your tax issue, I must check first. California is in the Carbon credit business.I posted proof of such. Carbon dioxide, a well known plant food is emitted. I don't suppose you studied it should feed many more plants???

I prefer that carbon credits are eliminated.
You said that tesla received a carbon tax credit from the Feds, not CA; regardless, it wasn't a carbon tax tax credit at all, but an emissions offset for cafe standards.
But hold the horses on this "our cars are virtually non-polluting and pollution can be ignored" --that's rubbish. Mobile sources account for 65% of toxic emissions in CA according to CARB. As for California's zero emission vehicles (true ZEV), theres relatively few, e.g. tesla, leaf, volt etc.; most of what you're thinking of are partial zero emission vehicles (pzev) like hybrids and such, and low emssion vehicles (lev III) that were brought about by CAFE standards and even more stringent CA fleet standards to qualify for conditionally granted waivers from the EPA because California wasn't meeting its air quality targets. But even if I counted added all the pzev and ZEV cars sold in california betwen 1990-2010, it would only number a few million, which is less than 10% of the 25 million small cars on the road. and that doesn't count diesel trucks and freight movement. Seriously, where do you get your information. i mean sure, its better than it was thirty years, but it was awful 30 years ago and there were even less cars. With more cars to come, making them as clean as possible is necessary unless we want air quality to worsen.
Many areas in California still don't hit their Fed targets; the San Joaquin valley air district was issued a fine a year or two ago and it was attached to San Joaquin valley residents' car registrations. Why do you think they attached it cars? Because cars pollute, that's why!

beside that, the reason our air is cleaner than it once was is because California does have highly stringent standards and fleet-wide sales requirements like 15% electric cars by 2025 and, like the electric/fuel cell credits that tesla receives, are funded by automobile manufacturers and the income generated from permit auctions. Theres good reason for this too; if california voluntarily implements a market for clean air incentives, and even if we dont meet targets, we get to keep that revenue in California and show the Feds that we tried and therefore deserve a waiver; whereas if we just stuck with fed standards alone and failed to meet fed targets, we get fined for violating CAA and our monies go to washington and we must appeal to them to fund programs aimed at curbing emissions.

[logroller]

www.arb.ca.gov


PO BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO CA 9
5
812 (800) 242
-
4450


REVISED 0





March 1, 2013



As of the bid guarantee deadline of February 27th, 2013, no covered entities or

opt in entities had indicated an intent to bid at the March 2013 reserve sale


and provided a bid guarantee.


Therefore, the Air Resources Board will not be holding
the reserve sale scheduled for March 8, 2013.

The next reserve sale is scheduled for June 27, 2013. A notice for that reserve

sale will be posted approximately 30 days prior to the scheduled date. All
allowances for the March 2013 reserve sale will be made available at the June
2013 reserve sale.


Background:

The California Cap
-
and
-
Trade Program includes an Allowance Price
Containment Reserve available to California covered entities and opt-

in covered entities in quarterly reserve sales. More information about the reserve sales can

be found at:http://www.arb

.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auction/auction.htm
.



For further information about reserve sales, please contact Mr.

Chuck Seidler at
cseidler@arb.ca.gov or (916) 324
-
0931.


For questions regarding the California GHG Cap
-
and
-
Trade Program, please
contact the California Air Resources Board at (916) 322
-
2037. For more
inf
ormation on the California Cap
-
and
-
Trade Program, please go to:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm
.




California Environmental Protection
Agency

| AIR RESOURCES BOARD


nobody bought the allowances because they don't need them--meaning they are emitting less than the cap. You see, they set the cap based on historic averages. Same thing happened with the RECLAIM program for SOx and NOx. Ex-ante analysis showed it was too generous a cap; time will tell if CARB's program over-allotted, but I'm thinking its the sluggish economy that produces less goods and services and, likewise, emits less carbon. Still don't see the relation between GHG cap and trade and Tesla's CAFE-based credit.

[fj1200]

Tesla paid no federal taxes on profits. Had they not swapped, they owed a tax debt. I accept you make those claims. I don't know if said claims are accurate as to what happened and why.

I'm pretty sure that Tesla has not shown any profits but any revenues received from selling credits would have added to profitability, not detracted.


Oh about Tesla. The reason Tesla did this was to collect a lot of money. I expect if you examine that, you will probably see they saved income taxes.

That makes no sense.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=623608#post623608)
Tesla paid no federal taxes on profits. Had they not swapped, they owed a tax debt. I accept you make those claims. I don't know if said claims are accurate as to what happened and why.



I'm pretty sure that Tesla has not shown any profits but any revenues received from selling credits would have added to profitability, not detracted.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=623614#post623614)
Oh about Tesla. The reason Tesla did this was to collect a lot of money. I expect if you examine that, you will probably see they saved income taxes.



That makes no sense.


I'm pretty sure that Tesla has not shown any profits but any revenues received from selling credits would have added to profitability, not detracted.



That makes no sense.

1. I did not claim the credits detracted.
2. Actually, it is possible that Tesla made no profit but my point is they collected credits. It is like a person who is thin gets paid for not getting fat.
3. If it made no sense, you needed to state why.

[Robert A Whit]

nobody bought the allowances because they don't need them--meaning they are emitting less than the cap. You see, they set the cap based on historic averages. Same thing happened with the RECLAIM program for SOx and NOx. Ex-ante analysis showed it was too generous a cap; time will tell if CARB's program over-allotted, but I'm thinking its the sluggish economy that produces less goods and services and, likewise, emits less carbon. Still don't see the relation between GHG cap and trade and Tesla's CAFE-based credit.

We seem to be wasting time since CA called off the sale. Does not matter why they did it since they simply did it.

[fj1200]

1. I did not claim the credits detracted.
2. Actually, it is possible that Tesla made no profit but my point is they collected credits. It is like a person who is thin gets paid for not getting fat.
3. If it made no sense, you needed to state why.

I'm trying. Your logic is faulty.

[Robert A Whit]

I'm trying. Your logic is faulty.

No idea why you said that.

I would like for you to review my original post; number 1. Beyond that, this thread has taken some very weird twists and turns that I am weary of.

[logroller]

We seem to be wasting time since CA called off the sale. Does not matter why they did it since they simply did it.
Huh? Wouldn't holding the auction with nobody bidding be a greater waste of time? Or not offering to hold an auction to check if there was interest be a failure?
Even if they held the auction and it sold gangbusters, you'd still say its a waste of time. Your strawman argument is a waste a time it seems.

Skinny people fat people? You keep using analogies which don't hold water. Tesla received a credit because their cars offset the emissions of other cars which pollute more than their's do; not because they didnt make cars. They didn't get paid to do nothing; they were paid for producing a car which emits zero emission.

[Robert A Whit]

Huh? Wouldn't holding the auction with nobody bidding be a greater waste of time? YES


Or not offering to hold an auction to check if there was interest be a failure? YES
Even if they held the auction and it sold gangbusters, you'd still say its a waste of time. Your strawman argument is a waste a time it seems. YES, but it is not a strawman, thus no. I said it is a waste of time to deal with this topic with you given you do not refer to post number 1 and that was the point all of this commenced.

Skinny people fat people? You keep using analogies which don't hold water. No

Tesla received a credit because their cars offset the emissions of other cars which pollute more than their's do; YES

not because they didnt make cars. Not my point and I did not make that claim


They didn't get paid to do nothing; they were paid for producing a car which emits zero emission.
YES --- in short a reward for doing nothing. Can you show me any electric auto that has emitted emissions?
*

[logroller]

*
Building an electric car is not doing nothing; it is most certainly something. Here's a few pictures of what tesla manufactures.
http://m.autoblog.com/photos/2012-tesla-model-s-first-drive/

Seriously, you're being unreasonable if you can't see the difference between making a car and not making a car.

[Robert A Whit]

Building an electric car is not doing nothing; it is most certainly something. Here's a few pictures of what tesla manufactures.
http://m.autoblog.com/photos/2012-tesla-model-s-first-drive/

Seriously, you're being unreasonable if you can't see the difference between making a car and not making a car.

Tesla makes cars at the same factory I worked at for 3 months in 1964. I can drive to the factory in 5 minutes. I have followed that car from day one when publicity came out.

Making any car is something. I am trying in context to say that there is no reason to pay Tesla.

Other auto makers also did something. This is politics is all it is. The same crappy stuff pulled by Democrats.

I did imply that making the electric car accomplishes what the gas car does. To move me from point A to B.

But my gas driven car does not need to stop frequently for more charge. I can fill up in 10 minutes or less.

Do you deny that to charge electric cars that coal fired plants produce that electricity?

[logroller]

Tesla makes cars at the same factory I worked at for 3 months in 1964. I can drive to the factory in 5 minutes. I have followed that car from day one when publicity came out.

Making any car is something. I am trying in context to say that there is no reason to pay Tesla.

Other auto makers also did something. This is politics is all it is. The same crappy stuff pulled by Democrats.

I did imply that making the electric car accomplishes what the gas car does. To move me from point A to B.

But my gas driven car does not need to stop frequently for more charge. I can fill up in 10 minutes or less.

Do you deny that to charge electric cars that coal fired plants produce that electricity?
Not in California; and even if they did, that pollution would be captured, economically speaking, by the greenhouse gas cap and trade market. Let me just explain something; there are federal laws and rules concerning corporate average fuel economy, CAFE. These standards require that ford, Chevy, Mercedes Honda etc etc all must produce a fleet of cars (meaning all the cars they sell in the United States) that have certain fuel economies by both class of vehicle and overall. Now what you propose is that if they fail to meet these targets; they be taxed accordingly. This produces two unintented results. First and foremost, it doesnt necessarily meet fuel economy standards-- the intent of the law! Because paying a fine doesn't doesn't lower emissions; it may curb it, but ink to the extent that the firms internal cost of meeting targets is less than the tax. secondly, what should the government do with those funds? The funds were raised to cover the damage pollutikndoes upon the air; so how is the legislated intent of law, cleaner air, accomplished by taxing polluters? However, enlarge the market to include those firms which not only meet targets, but indeed, produce no tailpipe emissions and the target is met. Firms are free to produce the cars that net their firm the most profit and the social good, clean air is likewise met. Take the jnstrument of credits away and all you have is a penal system, where clean air targets, if they're met, lag well behind the target acquisition achieved by credit markets. In a perfect world, the EPA sets a target and overnight all the firms just flip a switch and emission to down. This is not the case. Following the 1990 clean air act, technical solutions reduced emissions by leaps and bounds, but those things are already done; so now we are faced with command and control mechanisms that can no longer function the way they once did; market based policy instruments is the best solution.

[Robert A Whit]

Not in California; and even if they did, that pollution would be captured, economically speaking, by the greenhouse gas cap and trade market. Let me just explain something; there are federal laws and rules concerning corporate average fuel economy, CAFE. These standards require that ford, Chevy, Mercedes Honda etc etc all must produce a fleet of cars (meaning all the cars they sell in the United States) that have certain fuel economies by both class of vehicle and overall. Now what you propose is that if they fail to meet these targets; they be taxed accordingly. This produces two unintented results. First and foremost, it doesnt necessarily meet fuel economy standards-- the intent of the law! Because paying a fine doesn't doesn't lower emissions; it may curb it, but ink to the extent that the firms internal cost of meeting targets is less than the tax. secondly, what should the government do with those funds? The funds were raised to cover the damage pollutikndoes upon the air; so how is the legislated intent of law, cleaner air, accomplished by taxing polluters? However, enlarge the market to include those firms which not only meet targets, but indeed, produce no tailpipe emissions and the target is met. Firms are free to produce the cars that net their firm the most profit and the social good, clean air is likewise met. Take the jnstrument of credits away and all you have is a penal system, where clean air targets, if they're met, lag well behind the target acquisition achieved by credit markets. In a perfect world, the EPA sets a target and overnight all the firms just flip a switch and emission to down. This is not the case. Following the 1990 clean air act, technical solutions reduced emissions by leaps and bounds, but those things are already done; so now we are faced with command and control mechanisms that can no longer function the way they once did; market based policy instruments is the best solution.

Correct about CA.
I don't see any pollution captured. I see that one factory wants to pollute and gets permission from factory B that does not pollute and money changes hands for said permission. The net impact is zero. This is how I understand it anyway.

CAFE laws I understand but they are more market interference by governments and in my view their attempt to control this country reminds me of what I found when I visited East Germany under communism.

Perish the idea I want auto makers taxed for so called pollution. See my problem is that I know a lot about automobiles and understand that CA emissions in particular are so stringent that CA drivers for all intents and purposes emit no pollution. Not much to talk about anyway.

Here is what I like.
1. I appreciate the CA laws that caused the air to clean up.
2. I appreciate the SF Bay no longer smelling like a toilet. And close to Berkeley, this is fact.
3. I appreciate the catalytic converters. I can tell they have improved a lot as to our air.

I do not consider carbon dioxide to be more than plant food. I feel more plants will consume said Carbon Dioxide as will the waters.

Tesla sells those small 2 seater cars for over $60,000 including taxes and licenses.

Some of what you say appears to be your understanding of what I mean but that is not what I mean. Such as ( Because paying a fine doesn't doesn't lower emissions; it may curb it).

It seems to me if you are standing on the topic, that your beef is with factories. I have this to say since I worked for 3 months at the Factory in Fremont that Tesla now uses and we did not burn fuels of any sort other than a gallon of gas per car so they could be parked on their own power. The plant used electric power. Which was produced by hydro electric.

I have a different political philosophy than you have. You speak as if you represent Obama but I represent hot his view but say Milton Friedman and his group.

We can agree that some prodding or laws by the state did help a lot. But this stuff grinds me down. It simply is some sort of substitute for corporations wills by government. I see huge corporations as one sort of big power and a dysfunctional government as one more power. Each has faults.

Taxes should only be for revenue to manage government, not as punishment.

I am sorry but I do not follow your argument as to how punishing companies creates good for the country by saying to a non polluter, here, take this from Company A and use it Mr Company B as you wish since you don't pollute.

Perhaps I am not alarmed the sky is falling as you appear to me to be.

Kick me for having been in East Germany during communism where is saw up close how it really works. I think that motivated me to leave Democrats and vote for Republicans though I am one that actually believes in the constitution of the USA and a bit less in the constitution of CA.

When companies freely engage in commerce, that is fine with me. When they are ran over by the government that is not fine with me. As to these phony carbon credits, some will make plenty of money and those paying will shove the higher costs onto the consumer. Distorting the economy.

My feeling is that Tesla is distorting the economy. I don't approve that.