Tax Dollars at Work

[Gaspar]

Either Nathan is already enjoying rum drinks or he left his "nice" pills in Tulsa.

They make their rum in lead lined trash cans!

I love a good intoxicated post.

[Hoss]

They make their rum in lead lined trash cans!

I love a good intoxicated post.

That's pretty obvious coming from you.

[Gaspar]

Come on Nate, make em pull the bus over for you!

[nathanm]

Come on Nate, make em pull the bus over for you!

No gracias, Gaspar...

[Gaspar]

Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced yesterday that it has awarded $17.4 million for pilot projects that will begin exploring how to sell Carbon Credits.

I thought ALGOR was already doing this?

Didn't the Catholic church do this back in the 1500s?

[dbacks fan]

Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced yesterday that it has awarded $17.4 million for pilot projects that will begin exploring how to sell Carbon Credits.

I thought ALGOR was already doing this?

Didn't the Catholic church do this back in the 1500s?

Is it just me or does any else think "carbon credits" are a sham and a way to create a tax credit for businesses?

[we vs us]

Is it just me or does any else think "carbon credits" are a sham and a way to create a tax credit for businesses?

It's one of the more "acceptable" ways to encourage private business to voluntarily reduce their admissions.  It's "acceptable" because it shoehorns what should be straight away regulation into a weird market driven environment.  The problem with this is that when the carbon credit market takes on enough capital it will cease to be about actually reducing carbon and will become like any other capital market -- susceptible to bubbles and crashes and more about investment and making money on the peaks and valleys, rather than reducing carbon.

(This, by the way, is one of the main problems with our global economy, IMO: capital has found that it can make a better return on the peaks and valleys of assets and commodities than on actual investment in building things.  This is one primary reason why corporations are fat right now; they're making more money speculating than they are on expanding their businesses.)

[dbacks fan]

These are rich!

The National Science Foundation will be publishing some important studies this year funded by your taxes.

The NSF is spending over a half-million dollars on a study to figure out whether or not online dating sites are racist?

and. . .$2 million to figure if people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends.

and. . .$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names.

and. . .$315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships.

From everyones favorite Tom Coburn:

"Examples of the more than $3 billion in waste and duplication outlined in the report include:
•  $80,000 study on why the same teams always dominate March Madness;
•  $315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships;
•  $1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names;
•  $50,000 to produce and publicize amateur songs about science, including a rap called "Money 4 Drugz," and a misleading song titled "Biogas is a Gas, Gas, Gas";
•  $2 million to figure out that people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends; and
•  $581,000 on whether online dating site users are racist.

Additionally, the report details examples of mismanagement including:
•  Hundreds of millions of dollars lost to ineffective contracting;
•  $1.7 billion in unspent funds sitting in expired, undisbursed grant accounts;
•  At least $3 million in excessive travel funds
•  A lack of accountability or program metrics to evaluate expenditures.
•  Inappropriate staff behavior including porn surfing and Jello wrestling and skinny-dipping at NSF-operated facilities in Antarctica. "

http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2608:dr-coburn-releases-exposes-waste-mismanagement-at-the-national-science-foundation&catid=61:national&Itemid=109

[dbacks fan]

It's one of the more "acceptable" ways to encourage private business to voluntarily reduce their admissions.  It's "acceptable" because it shoehorns what should be straight away regulation into a weird market driven environment.  The problem with this is that when the carbon credit market takes on enough capital it will cease to be about actually reducing carbon and will become like any other capital market -- susceptible to bubbles and crashes and more about investment and making money on the peaks and valleys, rather than reducing carbon.

(This, by the way, is one of the main problems with our global economy, IMO: capital has found that it can make a better return on the peaks and valleys of assets and commodities than on actual investment in building things.  This is one primary reason why corporations are fat right now; they're making more money speculating than they are on expanding their businesses.)

Thanks it makes more sense to me now.

[we vs us]

Thanks it makes more sense to me now.

That may be a bit incomplete but that's how I understand it to work. 

I don't like it personally.  If we've decided that carbon cause climate change and we've decided that climate change is a threat, then we shouldn't pussyfoot around with solutions that may or may not work.  We should just go ahead and regulate it. 

The problem, IMO, is that there's a very active and influential political constituency that would not benefit by being further regulated, and they've tried to game the solution to the problem by turning it into what is essentially another investment vehicle.

[Gaspar]

That may be a bit incomplete but that's how I understand it to work. 

I don't like it personally.  If we've decided that carbon cause climate change and we've decided that climate change is a threat, then we shouldn't pussyfoot around with solutions that may or may not work.  We should just go ahead and regulate it. 

The problem, IMO, is that there's a very active and influential political constituency that would not benefit by being further regulated, and they've tried to game the solution to the problem by turning it into what is essentially another investment vehicle.

That's exactly right.  Government abhors regulation, unless it produces a means if diverting revenue (to government, or through collusion to political donors). 

Without Carbon Credits, regulation of carbon simply becomes environmental law, and there's no money it that.

Just like in the 1500s when the church realized that there was no money in regulating sin, unless it could somehow be purchased.

Thanks again for the alley-oop.

[Conan71]

It's one of the more "acceptable" ways to encourage private business to voluntarily reduce their admissions.  It's "acceptable" because it shoehorns what should be straight away regulation into a weird market driven environment.  The problem with this is that when the carbon credit market takes on enough capital it will cease to be about actually reducing carbon and will become like any other capital market -- susceptible to bubbles and crashes and more about investment and making money on the peaks and valleys, rather than reducing carbon.

(This, by the way, is one of the main problems with our global economy, IMO: capital has found that it can make a better return on the peaks and valleys of assets and commodities than on actual investment in building things.  This is one primary reason why corporations are fat right now; they're making more money speculating than they are on expanding their businesses.)

All we need to know about how this would wind up we can see from the derivative debacle.

[dbacks fan]

Thanks guys. I guess after reading several things on it, it was begining to sound like something Kevin Trudeau would be selling in a infomercial. (My ex spent a few hundred dollars on his stuff and got nothing out of it) So it seems my being skeptical, especially with the alGore comment I was thinking the right way.

[we vs us]

That's exactly right.  Government abhors regulation, unless it produces a means if diverting revenue (to government, or through collusion to political donors). 

Without Carbon Credits, regulation of carbon simply becomes environmental law, and there's no money it that.

Just like in the 1500s when the church realized that there was no money in regulating sin, unless it could somehow be purchased.

Thanks again for the alley-oop.

You misunderstand.  Let me clarify:  "The problem, IMO, is that there's a very active and influential political constituency made up of private corporations and institutional investors that would not benefit by being further regulated, and they've tried to game the solution to the problem by turning it into what is essentially another investment vehicle.

The carbon market is a weak-government solution, designed to pick off support from some of the more financially oriented members of the GOP.  The primary beneficiaries of a market based solution are neither the government nor private citizens.  It's the folks that stand to make a profit on the movement of the market that stand to benefit. 

[Gaspar]

All we need to know about how this would wind up we can see from the derivative debacle.

That's exactly how the strategies behind Generation Investment Management work.  They are a derivative market system.  Companies purchase credits to offset what they produce.  Those credits can be leveraged to increase carbon output.  Money from those credits is then invested in other companies that mitigate carbon output or offer carbon neutral investment strategies in technology or research (grants).  As those industries grow or shrink, the value of the purchased derivative is affected.

A third variable introduced into the climate trading model (carbon offset market) is a derivative value based on estimated carbon emissions.  This is where the fun is.  Much of the money invested in research is in the form of grants.  The value and ultimately award of such grants is dependent on the continuation of current climate philosophy.  

Think about it.