House energy bill gains support

Not to mention even less products exported from the US. We need to start producing goods here, in this country. This bill can only make that more difficult.

Ha and maybe you should consider taking a "Where do I put that comma again?" class. And was it really that important to post twice?

I know what a cap-and-trade system aims to do, but if you think we won't see an increased CPI as a consequence, then you're mistaken. So I think HR 2454 aims to cut emissions by 17% (from 2005 levels) by 2020. If there were a cheaper way for entrepreneurs to produce certain goods, then they would do it and sell them in the marketplace. Now the government wants to step in and force businesses to buy certain permits depending on their emissions. If that happens, then businesses will be forced to, a) go out of business, b) spend money developing a way to lower emissions or c) keep their current emissions and pay the tax. If a, then our economy suffers due to destruction of wealth. If b, then the price you pay for a good or service increases (assuming the company wants to keep their margin). If c, then prices go up (for the same reason as b).

This bill passed the house today. Increase the cost of living at the beginning of what is probably the worst economic crisis this country has ever seen...good work congress.

CPI????

Like a limited accounting of the average cost of a limited number of goods accurately reflects the cost.

You know this is a distortion of the proper measure of cost.

It depends which cpi you're using. I was using it as a general term. But yes, if the sample data are a good representation of the real data, then a mean value will show a positive correlation and yield a "good" representaions. But again, if you want to get into semantics, then I have no problem using another word/phrase.

1) its nice to know that you finally took some effort to do a bit of research (as in you at least know we have an existing CnT in place already)

2) You didn't look at the total cost to the economy. Once you factor in fish kills, loss of tourism due to environment damage, damage to buildings, homes, cars, other structures, etc. it is easy to see the profit.

Again, if you are talking about a cost or benefit, you have to consider it in terms of the total impact.

On second thought,

I've got to add that I'm disappointed. I thought you told me that you were in college studying some field of economics (If I've got you confused with someone else, I am sorry).

If this is true, why are you performing such poor analysis of cost and benefit? Seriously, when I did my professor gig, I openly mocked students when they did such poor work.

For a long time I've thought that those who jump on/insult people (in an academic sense) are the people who are most insecure with the scope of what they know. In any case, no -- economics was not my focus in school. I started studying LPS, which is philosophy of logic, philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of physics. After the LPS bachelors, I got another bachelors in physics. Towards the end of school, I become interested in quantitative econ, and since I had already taken all the math, I took a few of those classes. After I graduated I really got into Mises and Rothbard. Now I'm thinking about applying to LSE.

Now that you have my econ background (which isn't much), I have a few things to say.

1) You never answered my question. Are you claiming that this bill will not increase the cost of living for the average american? Or, are you claiming that it will actually lower it?

2) With all these restrictions on producers here in the US, do you think it will hurt us as a global competitor? If not, why?

3) Lastly, and most importantly, I didn't know I was writing a thesis-type response for current. If I were to grade your ideas...well...let's just say that all that exist are unjustified claims. The burden of proof lies upon you. Let me say this (for sake of argument): I have completely researched the SO2, NOX cap-and-trade program for acid rain and I have found no evidence to support that it has (monetarily) benefited the economy as a whole. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it's saving us more than it's costing us. Justify your claim. Let's see what you have in mind. I don't want an environmental argument; let's see some kind of quantitative facts. I firmly agree that the market is smarter than any subset of the market, so whatever you present can be attributed to something other than the cap-and-trade program.

These charts begin to imply that your numbers are without proper context. But the real problem is that you fail to properly understand cost within the given context.

the appropriate measure of cost: Pollution control cost or any form of resource management cost is measured as the rate of negative impact of the difference between social benefits and social costs. Harvard Environmental Law Review, volume 27, number 2, 2003, pp. 377-415. Within a dynamic context, efficiency is that which maximizes social benefit. Harvard Environmental Law Review, volume 27, number 2, 2003, pp. 377-415. see notes.

Measured appropriately (benefits vs costs), the cap and trade approach has proven immensely beneficial and efficient. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 3, pages 69-88, Summer 1998. The Harvard study indicates that it is both efficient and cost effective (though, not as strongly stated as in the JoEP)

But this isn't to be unexpected. Since, The effectiveness of cap and trade approaches to air pollution was first demonstrated in a series of micro-economic computer simulation studies between 1967 and 1970 for the National Air Pollution Control Administration. The studies utilized various mathematical models and found that Cap and Trade approaches are usually the most effective and least costly method of pollution reduction
Burton, E. S. and William Sanjour. (1970). "A Simulation Approach to Air Pollution Abatement Program Planning." Socio-Economic Planning Science 4: 147-150.

However, if you want some more figures...

• The expected market price for SO2 allowances was in the range of $650-$850 (in 2000 dollars). The actual market has been between $100 and $200 for most of the program.

• In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants took advantage of the allowance banking provision to reduce SO2 emissions 22 percent (7.3 million tons) below mandated levels for the first phase of the program.

• On the eve of legislation, the EPA estimated that the program would cost $6 billion annually once it was fully implemented (in 2000 dollars). The Office of Management and Budget has estimated actual costs to be $1.1 to $1.8 billion -- just 20 to 30 percent of the forecasts.

At these values, the Cap and Trade program to curb acid rain pays for itself multiple times over and ""probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." The Economist magazine (July 6, 2002).

Now, to answer your question as to cost for the average American family. Under the proper measure of cost (as defined in an above response), the cost is likely to pale as compared to the benefits.

But let me make this very easy to understand with an example. Take one of the cars I own. Under your measure of cost, you view an oil change as being a cost not measured against any gain. Under the PROPER measure of cost, the cost of the oil change is measured against the benefit of longer life of the vehicle.

Most people are smart enough to understand this. I can only hope that you understand and in the future apply the correct measure of cost when discussion regulatory actions.

First, you completely ignored my first two questions.

(note: your oil change analogy is a false one -- if cpi is increased, then oil prices also increase. In other words, you would already be changing your oil and getting all the benefits. The only thing that changes is the cost of the oil change; not the benefits.)

Secondly, I'm hoping JSTOR will have those journals you mentioned, but if there's no quantitative analysis of how the economy (as a whole) has seen a net positive increase (in monetary terms), you didn't answer my most important question either. I'm on my way to Vegas so I'll get back to you at the end of the weekend.

I've seen both charts you pasted (as well as all the bullet points) @ http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085.

And think about the other two questions.

again, you fail to understand the proper measure of costs. I will re-quote it for you.

the appropriate measure of cost: Pollution control cost or any form of resource management cost is measured as the rate of negative impact of the difference between social benefits and social costs. Harvard Environmental Law Review, volume 27, number 2, 2003, pp. 377-415. Within a dynamic context, efficiency is that which maximizes social benefit. Harvard Environmental Law Review, volume 27, number 2, 2003, pp. 377-415. see notes.

Your misunderstanding is clear from you statement of how one would already be receiving the benefits in my example. My example did not utilize any measure of cpi nor any pre-conceived initial conditions (for example, your statement "you would already be changing your oil and getting all the benefits").

Again, to assist you in understanding. the cost of the oil change is not properly measured in the simple amount you pay for the oil change (or the amt paid for oil if you do it yourself).

Instead, the proper measure is the cost as compared to the benefit. In a sense, you measure it kind of like an investment.

changing the example to one of pollution control, Pollution control cost or any form of resource management cost is measured as the rate of negative impact of the difference between social benefits and social costs. Harvard Environmental Law Review, volume 27, number 2, 2003, pp. 377-415.

Now, how hard is that?

Additionally, how does

"Now, to answer your question as to cost for the average American family. Under the proper measure of cost (as defined in an above response), the cost is likely to pale as compared to the benefits." not answer your question of "True or False: this cap-and-trade bill will increase the cost of living for the average american?"

It may not of answered it in a format you wanted (your question is insufficient to be appropriately answered by true or false) but it does answer the underlying question of the net impact felt by the average American.

@ cybexg

So I had access to both the JoEP and the Harvard Environmental Law Review on JSTOR so I read both of the articles you cited. I skipped the 4 page computational analysis article from 1970 so you'll have to excuse me.

Now the fun starts...

So your basic idea is that even if there is a cost of regulation (whether it be command-and-control, or a "market-based" cap-and-trade), if you account for everything, there will be a monetary savings. In other words, with all things considered, we will have spent less.

The only reason I said that is so you would finally stop saying the same thing over and over again. It's gets irritating. I get it. Stop. Christ.

First Question:

I asked if you are making the claim that this bill will not increase the cost of living for the average american? You said the cost would "pale" in comparison (whatever that means). You used changing the oil as an example in your car. I correctly pointed out that it is a FALSE ANALOGY. You see, if I am currently paying $40/change, I understand all the benefits -- that's why I do it. If I didn't change my oil, say, my pistons (as well as my cylinder walls) would be ruined and then I'd be out close to $4k for parts alone. So yeah, a $40 oil change is worth it. But I'm already paying that and I'm already getting all the benefits. (The EPA already regulates companies and we, the taxpayers, are already paying for that. So we're getting benefits at a cost...just like an oil change.) Now you want to push for even more benefits (similar to a 17% emissions decrease by 2020) like, I don't know, maybe you want to stop heat-soaking your oil coolers. You can't use the same oil as an example. Maybe there's an oil on the market that runs cooler than any other oil. That would be a benefit, but you should expect to pay for it. It would definitely add to the longevity of your motor, but if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. Simple as that.

Second Question:

With all these restrictions on producers here in the US, do you think it will hurt us as a global competitor? If not, why not?

You completely ignored this one. Twice. Take a shot at it.

Third Question:

You claimed that, "Once you factor in fish kills, loss of tourism due to environment damage, damage to buildings, homes, cars, other structures, etc. it is easy to see the profit [of a cap-and-trade program]."

Um...what are you reading? I asked for a quantitative analysis. What did you give me?

Let me quote the Harvard Environmental Law Review.

"Our analysis is primarily qualitative, although in cases in which quantitative economics analyses of environmental policies have been produced, we discuss those results."

And as a side note, one of the only cases they did discuss (on page 393) was in my favor -- that is, from a strictly quantitative analysis, the cost outweighs the benefit. Let me quote some more for you...

"...but the influence of economic thinking in analyzing environmental rules and regulations within the EPA DECLINED SIGNIFICANTLY during the 1990s."

"...not all regulatory benefits and costs can be monetized..." (which I agree 100% with by the way. you said they could be though)

"about two thirds of the federal government's approved environmental quality regulations FAILED benefit-cost analysis using the government's own numbers. A good example..." (page 383 if you wanna see YOUR SOURCE hammer YOUR ARGUMENT even more)

Don't pretend that you can quantitatively provide an argument that cap-and-trade (or command-and-control for that matter...I don't really care what kind of regulation it is) is going to be cheaper. You can argue on a normative sense saying that we "SHOULD" do this, but that's not what we're doing here.

Another interesting thing I found is on page 394 (first full paragraph). The EPA must protect public health with "an adequate margin of safety." Yeah, kinda like putting non-synthetic castrol with a fram filter in your car. Using something else would be great, but we cannot afford it right now.

We're not done either. That was only one article. Let's look at the JoEP for some kind of quantitative analysis. I still haven't found anything pertaining to your original claim of, "Once you factor in fish kills, loss of tourism due to environment damage, damage to buildings, homes, cars, other structures, etc. it is easy to see the profit." Maybe in this article...

...let's look...

fish kills: no
tourism: no
building damage: nope
cars: you talk more about cars...they mentioned nothing
homes: nothing
other structures: sadly, no
etc...: haha, no

Did you even read the conclusion?? Here it is:

"Given that the SO2 allowance-trading program became fully binding only in 1995, we should be cautious when drawing conclusions about lessons to be learned from the program's development or its performance. A number of important ques- tions remain. For example, little is known empirically about the impact of trading on technological change. Also, much more empirical research is needed on how the pre-existing regulatory environment affects the operation of permit trading programs. Moreover, all the successes with tradeable permits have involved air pol- lution: acid rain, leaded gasoline, and chlorofluorocarbons. Our experience (and success rate) with water pollution is much more limited (Hahn, 1989), and in other areas, we have no experience at all. Even for air pollution problems, the tremendous differences between SO2 and acid rain, on the one hand, and the combustion of fossil fuels and global climate change, on the other, indicate that any rush to judge- ment regarding global climate policy instruments is unwarranted."

So here's a 4th question: where are you getting all of this?? I know it's not the 4 page 1970 article I skipped. (I have access, I just didn't read it.) If you have nothing quantitative, then don't pretend like you do.

I have more notes and I have a lot more to say, but I really feel like I'm wasting my time here.

Okay, this will be short and fast – I have far too much to do (finish an appeal brief, etc.).

1)I'm so glad you had time to review the material. But you STILL fail to grasp the argument. Only PART of the argument is “if you account for everything, there will be a monetary savings. In other words, with all things considered, we will have spent less.”
2)the 2nd part of the argument is that this represents a more “truer” cost (any added expense will be reflected back into the market for the goods, energy, etc.) for the production of energy, stuff, etc. As you should be well aware, market mechanisms require accurately priced items to achieve near optimal and rational performance.
3)The oil change analogy. NO, you have misstated your own argument. Your argument is that an oil change is a rational decision b/c of its benefits. Also, that you have a history (evidence) upon which to justify the costs of the oil change. Finally (though I am not sure since you seemed to have gone off into left field....), there is an implication that your history of costs and benefits is more believable and hence your action (getting an oil change) has a higher utility of rationality than imposing a CnT does.
What your argument fails to grasp is that rationality under uncertainty can be achieved through collective response. Under law, an expression of this rule is the learned hand rule. There are various expressions of this rule in mathematics. Market theory has various forms of it too. The idea is this, something with an uncertain probability (small, medium, large) multiplied by the cost of that event (even if uncertain) equals an expected value. Though uncertain, this expected value represents an expectation of the impact felt by all (either society or market participants, etc.).

However, market reaction to this is unlikely to occur because of any number of factors (inability to perceive impact, inequitable distribution of costs, etc.). As such, the market market mechanism fails. At this point and time, then an outside influence is required to adjust costs to bring the market back to rationality. Note, for those of you following along, this is also explained in regulation theory.

4) Will it hurt us in terms of global competition. Stupid question because your question only examines one of many factors. All countries have distorted and obfuscated actual costs of production (socialized health care, various energy policies, various tax policies, etc.) A reasonable answer would be (remember, I have limited time), there will be a period of readjustment after which the market should reach some sort of near optimal distribution according to the forces in place at that time. In short, some costs will increase, others will decrease but the market will be operating under better information (as explained above). You do want the market to have better information and hence perform better- right?

5)Fish kills, etc. I can only guess that you purposefully decided to not even bother doing any search on your own. There are numerous sources ranging from ACID RAIN IN EUROPE: AN ENERGY-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY Leen Hordijk International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis which gives various models to NY's DEC website (http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8631.html) to Penn State's EMS website (http://www.ems.psu.edu/), to the EPA's website. I would suggest reviewing the responses to the comments – there are a noted number of cost responses.
I might add, selecting one small section from ONE of MANY possible sources is at best cherry picking. At worst, it is a purposeful attempt at misinformation and intellectually lazy. You will note that I typically utilize a number of references. I would suggest that you do the same. It might also be nice if you were pro-active enough to have actually researched the environmental impact of acid rain rather than just cherry pick from one of my sources used for a DIFFERENT sub argument.

6)“Don't pretend that you can quantitatively provide an argument that cap-and-trade ...” Please see above of market inability to provide rationality under uncertainty.

7)“"Once you factor in fish kills, loss of tourism due to environment damage, damage to buildings, homes, cars, other structures, etc. it is easy to see the profit."”.....I'm sorry I thought some research wasn't out of your capabilities. I've listed some above. But just to make it easier for you, “Nonetheless, in spite of, and in some cases because of these important cavets, our exploration of the relevant uncertainties leads us to find compelling evidence that benefits of title IV substantially exceed costs. The costs and benefits of reducing acid rain, Dallas Burtraw, Alan Krupnick, etc. I would also suggest reviewing various mortality studies and air pollution risks. If you really need help, I can find you a source for that too.

8)Did I read the conclusion? Yes, but I thought I was using that article for its definition of costs and methodology. I didn't use it for its conclusion because the authors themselves admit their limited experience and contaminated data (other sources). In fact, you even listed their statement but yet failed to apply it.?????? BTW, I noticed you did FAIL to include the conclusion I did use (cherry picking again?)

9)Where am I getting....getting what-market and regulation theory – mostly from my previous PhD work.

10)As far as quantitatively...well your consistent usage of the word underscores your misunderstanding of the concept. In environmental science, socio-economic based studies, etc. there are few quantitative values (as you understand them). Instead, there are probabilities, probability measures, measure functions, etc. If your math is insufficient to understand this, then send me postage and I will lend (I still use them, I will need them back) some primers to you.

11)wasting time – well, you failed to understand the argument, you failed to do any meaningful research, you cherry picked (at best, at worst you mislead), you fail to understand the mathematics....yes, I would say that you have wasted your time, and mine as well. I can only hope that someone willing to put forth some effort benefits from this.

I'm done researching your lost cause. I still don't believe it's possible to quantitatively measure regulated benefits, but you claim it is. At best, none of your sources have anything conclusive to back up your claim, and at worst, they undermine your claim altogether. The burden of proof lies on you. If quantitative information was so easy to find, you would have simply posted it in the beginning instead of having me do your work. You accuse me of cherry picking when you cherry picked from your own sources. You post them, and then when I actually read them and tell you they undermine your argument you default and say you just wanted a definition. Maybe you should have just given me a page number if you didn't want me to read the whole thing.

Unless you're referring to some kind of game theoretic system, I have no idea what mathematics you're talking about. And if that's the case, I'd bet $20 you're clueless in that field.

Thanks for the offer, but you can keep your Reader's Digest primers.

You cannot win an argument with rhetoric. I knew you were a student teacher. 95% of you guys know just enough to get yourselves into trouble.

In response:

1) “quantitatively measure”... Again, you have shown your lack of understanding. To assist you, I have reproduced my previous response

As far as quantitatively...well your consistent usage of the word underscores your misunderstanding of the concept. In environmental science, socio-economic based studies, etc. there are few quantitative values (as you understand them). Instead, there are probabilities, probability measures, measure functions, etc. If your math is insufficient to understand this, then send me postage and I will lend (I still use them, I will need them back) some primers to you.

2) “At best, none of your sources have anything conclusive to back up your claim”

Please see the predictive models of Hordijk.

3) “If quantitative information was so easy to find” I think you do not understand the probabilistic nature of the information. Here, I will reproduce some of my earlier statement. Try reading it this time.
there are few quantitative values (as you understand them). Instead, there are probabilities, probability measures, measure functions, etc. If your math is insufficient to understand this, then send me postage and I will lend (I still use them, I will need them back) some primers to you.

4) “when I actually read them”.
No, you only read one or two of all of the sources I stated. Anyone can tell this by the limited number of sites your response listed in response to my sites. No, I take that back. You didn’t read them. All of the sites I listed earlier denoted the uncertain (as in probabilistic nature) of the information they could access. However, not only have you failed to acquire that understanding (though stated again and again in my sources) but you seem incapable of understanding the concept.

5) Field of mathematics:

Here again you indicate your novice status. The math I used (and talked about) can be found in a number of different mathematical fields. For example, Information theory; “Where reliable reception of the source data is not possible....” is a common preface for much of information theory. – to help you out, you could translate this as when quantitative values are indeterminate (a problem you seem unable to get past).

Highly simplified, Information theory states that you can use the probabilistic measures, values, etc to derive your values. Any error can be similarly bounded by representing it too as a probabilistic value.

BTW, here is an example to make it clear. When you turn on a radio, do you really think you are getting perfect information? No, your radio is extracting information from a noisy and imperfect signal – in other words, using probabilistic values, measures, etc.

How about probability and measure: Isn’t it Kolmogorov’s existence theorem that says something (don’t have a text in front of me) where you have a system of distributions satisfying some consistency conditions, then you can make a measure such that the coordinate variable process containing those distributions as a finite dimensional distribution. In other words, I may not know the exact formula for the fish killed (or etc.) but as long as I have some probabilistic models (distributions), all of which satisfying some consistency conditions, I can create a measure of that harm.

I believe I could state the same thing using approximation theory. However, I believe most work in that field makes use of a normed, linear space for differences. As such, I’m not immediately sure of the impact of the probabilistic values.....I’ll think about that.

As far as game theory, you are WAY off. I’ll take your bet. But in this case, the game wouldn’t be individual decision making under conditions of uncertainty, it would be group decision making under conditions of uncertainty.

As such, you need a social welfare function under conditions of uncertainty. That is, you will have to define a rule which associates to each profile of preferential orderings, a preferential ordering for society itself. I believe (sry, it has been years) the expression is written as (R1, R2, ....Rn) -> R Where the rule (->) “combines” the orderings into a an ordering for society.

BTW, just to clue you in as to how much game theory I know, please tell me how you propose to satisfy Arrow’s impossibility theorem under conditions of uncertainty. For those of you following along, there are two general ways of handling Arrow’s, I want to see if bbar really knows as much game theory as he says. I want to see the derivations of the two general ways of getting around Arrow under conditions of uncertainty.

6) You cannot win....win/lose...whatever, my whole goal was to stop your mischaracterization of the problem and success of cap and trade systems. I’ve shown that you lack any substantive knowledge and are largely incapable of any valid analysis. I’ve shown that such systems are at least potentially cost effective – a more accurate and truthful position than the one you took.

Is this a joke? Ha how did you arrive at Arrow's impossibility theorem and what does social preference have to do with you trying to justify your claim of "...it easy to see the profit..."

Please explain, God.

Again I have to explain....

You proposed game theory in this scenario – “Unless you're referring to some kind of game theoretic system”

Arrow himself indicated the problem (not the cap and trade but the problem of passing from a set of known individual preferences to a social decision making process, that process intended to satisfy certain natural conditions) in his paper “A difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare.” Please note that he too did not deal w/ the situation of uncertainty.

So, now I’ve answered your question. But you have as yet to deliver any valid utility function for this game under conditions of uncertainty. So again, I am asking…where is it

BTW, deriving a consistent, rational utility function applicable in the game you suggested under the conditions stated probably would show that you have a clue.

Where is that derivation? Why didn't you just put that derivation down in the first place?

Still waiting for it.

Got your email response. It lacked a derivation. Where is it?

I have a question: how does me saying, "Unless you're referring to some kind of game theoretic system, I have no idea what mathematics you're talking about," imply that I proposed we apply game theory to a cap-and-trade system, and, more to the point, how can it possibly be twisted enough to mean I proposed game theory in THIS scenario (meaning applying Arrow)?

In any case, if I give you a proof, then will you agree than I am right? At this point, I don't even know what I would be right about because you're all over the map, but it would be worth it to me if you just stopped posting here.

You and I both know you have absolutely no quantitative evidence to support your "cap-and-trade benefits us monetarily" claim, which was what this was about in the first place.

Anyway sunshine, just give me the axioms (all of them) you'd like satisfied (a list would be nice), and if it's possible, I'll be more than happy to give you a proof. Give me the conclusion you would like too. After that, I'll be more than happy to show you why it doesn't apply to what we're talking about.

Can't wait to hear back from you!! :)

You just sent me 4 messages. Three of them the same, two of them the exact same and one was exactly what you posted here. Literally, exactly. And I get email notifications when you respond, so relax. Once you write something, I'll be back eventually. You should really consider switching to decaf.

This propaganda video is ridiculous! There are absolutely no facts at all!

Let's me just get this straight before I respond. You're trying to tell me that the cost of living will not be increased?

This video shows is the possibility of oil prices being raised which is fine with me. Fuck oil. We don't need it. Bike, Walk, get an Electric car. As far as food prices going up, grow a garden. Rising prices for these goods only effect the people who are dependent on things that pollute, cause disease, cancer and global warming.

I noticed you forgot to mention the already existing cap and trade system that, after accounting for all costs, has actually represented a savings...

Please research acid rain if you do not know of the CnT that I'm talking about.

@skomie111

Ok, so let's say "Fuck Oil." You suggest we walk, bike or buy an electric car. Good idea.

Walk: does that mean shoes will ware out faster? How are shoes produced? What materials are needed to produce shoes? How does that material arrive at the shoe mfg? How do shoes get from a mfg to a store where you would purchase them? But here's a better question: if you want to travel 20 miles (probably less than 20 minutes in a car), are you suggesting we walk? Really? The price to walk will increase.

Bike: how are bikes made? How do they get to you? Etc... The bike price will increase.

Electric car: do you have any idea how the batteries for a car like the Prius are made? Any idea how many hands those batteries go through just to make it to America? Those companies who produce the car's battery/parts will increase as a result of this bill.

Also, "grow a garden"? Really? That would be quite a suggestion to someone who lives on the 20th floor of a New York high rise.

Take an economics class, Cap and Trade systems work to first stop increasing emissions then slowly let the competitive nature of the CAPITALIST system (The system conservatives will love to their grave if necessary) to buy credits from lesser producers of emissions. The system will do nothing to the status quo or its prices, it simply will disallow corporations to create higher levels emissions to occur.

If the government would have stayed out of the recession, we would have been fine. They caused it. Doing nothing would have helped the markets.