Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 01/14/2011

The big picture

By Tom Toles

c_01142011.gif

***

Friday rant: rant control edition

I asked everybody else to calm down for a while, so it's just possible I should, too. Have we learned anything? Maybe relearned things we already knew, or should have known!

If you've ever been in a family, or a social group, or a rock band!, you may have discovered that negative attitudes and a sense of aggrievement are not only unpleasant, but, more importantly, catching. The cycle can start feeding on itself and become nearly impossible to break. Symptoms: overheated, unproductive, escalating rhetoric. What, oh what, to do in this wide grumpy land of ours? Here are my helpful tips!

Goals: Some Americans like less government and others more. Nobody wants none, and nobody wants all. Everybody likes liberty and justice and prosperity. We all at least pretend to like the environment. So it all comes down to what works best!

What works best: This, actually, is empiricism, not ideology. Let's try that! There. Problems solved! See you back at the screaming match next week. --Tom Toles

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_01142011.gif

By Tom Toles  | January 14, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: White alert
Next: Mouth that roared

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

Funny thing... a Poll Shows that 71% of Americans show that they feel that Sarah Palin made more relevant speech than Durbin, Schultz, Krugman, Dubnick, the NY Times .. and aother assoeted Vegetables from the Left right after the unfortunate shooting by a Nut Case without having a scintilla of facts at their disposal.... and they critize so,meone like Palin who like Obama took the time to "GIT IT RIGHT" ??????

Posted by: redhawk2 | January 17, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

redhead

Finally we see the plan of action that is proposed for CO2 reduction here. A few here will be interested I am sure. I do not have a lot of time here tonight so perhaps we continue later with a more in depth debate.

Say we agree nuclear and renewables get to 50% as that is not too much of a stretch.

Remember when we were all going from regular cars to flying cars back in Popular Science in the sixties? I believe that carbon sequestering on a production scale is about as likely. The technology consumes a lot of power as a retrofit and even if you scratch build plants the volume of CO2 is immense and removes at least 10% efficiency. A leak of a decades storage from a single plant could kill thousands if not tens of thousands. A true environmental disaster.

We will need a lot more electricity as the transportation industry moves from petroleum. We will also continue to consume more for our technology. Population will continue to increase. So reducing consumption will require a lot less air conditioning, street lighting, and building power consumption in general. This is a tough hurdle.

Why not just use more nuclear power as it is dense and relatively clean?

Sorry for this glib brief response but I have to get something else done. This conversation is appreciated as better understanding will provide better solutions. I am not convinced that global disaster is just around the corner but I am sure that US energy policy is being somewhat shaped by that assumption.

Arguing over which political stripe has more inflamatory rhetoric is entertaining but relatively useless. Getting together on a productive energy policy is important today and I look forward to further discussions.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 14, 2011 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bertzel | January 14, 2011 10:42 PM
"gee...must be nice to actually have a grown up discussion like daly and red here...

ranger you are not worth the type..."

Oh, come on now bert, you know you really want to.

Posted by: bushidollar | January 14, 2011 11:19 PM | Report abuse

gee...must be nice to actually have a grown up discussion like daly and red here...

ranger you are not worth the type...

Posted by: bertzel | January 14, 2011 10:42 PM | Report abuse

dalyplanet

If CO2 emissions cost more every year in our proposed CO2 cap and trade, market-based process, then obviously, competing energy generation techniques become relatively and progressively less expensive and so their use increases slowly each year. And new CO2-lowering techniques have a greater and greater value if they're invented.

As the externalities of emissions of CO2 become internalized in our energy costs, we'll respond be using less.

So let's take dalyplanet's earlier (and generally accepted) energy production numbers and cobble together a new U.S. energy budget for 2030:

Twenty percent nuclear generation in the U.S. in 2011 increases to 30% by 2030 as companies flock to the next generation of nuclear reactors because even counting the CO2 emissions from fissile-fuel processing, they allow power companies to deeply lower CO2 emissions and they want to do that, given slowly increasing CO2 emission costs if they don't. (10% fewer CO2 emissions in 2030 compared to 2011)

Hydro, wind, geothermal, & renewables go from 10% to 20% of total by 2030 as their costs drop as these sources use increases and power companies hedge their investments to maximize profits (as dalyplanet noted before). A long-term & consistent U.S. energy policy will strongly help this as companies can plan much better. (Add 10% fewer CO2 emissions.)

So now we've accounted for 50% of the electricity we use in 2030 from CO2-free or very low CO2 emissions (given that it's 30% now).

That leaves 50% of U.S. electricity production in 2030 that would still come from CO2-producing fossil fuels combustion (70% does now).

What can we realistically do in 2011 to significantly decrease the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use in 2030?

If we can sequester 25% of CO2 generated by fossil fuels in the U.S. by 2030 we're down to 38.5% of the fossil emissions in 2030 that we had in 2011 (0.25x50%=12.5% emissions saved; 50%-12.5% = 38.5%). Yes this magnitude of sequestration hasn't been "invented" yet on the scale needed--as dalyplanet notes--but, as I proposed in this blog, I think it's not unrealistic to conceive it's possible given past technological advances fostered by cap and trade for NOx & SO2. This isn't flawed logic just my estimate. (Add 12.5% fewer CO2 emissions in 2030.)

Finally, if we can flat out decrease usage by 2030 by 15% compared to 2011 we're down to 23.5% in 2030 compared to 2011. (And yes I avoid the obvious increase in energy use that an increasing population will entail.) (Add 15% fewer CO2 emissions.)

Total 2030 emission changes: 10+10+12.5+15=47.5% fewer CO2 emissions than 2011.

But what will happen to the use of electricity as its cost creeps up over the next 20 yrs? Americans will use less so let's add some more gains by 2030 to my proposed energy budget from the decreased use of energy as 2011 electricity costs slowly become the costs of 2030.

As emissions externalities become internalized in our energy costs, we'll respond be using less.

Posted by: redhead1990 | January 14, 2011 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Once again the early bird catches the worm, but not crawlanius like Chris Matthews has.

Posted by: jornolibist | January 14, 2011 9:39 PM | Report abuse

redhead

You are a clever debater, But it will take more work.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 14, 2011 9:37 PM | Report abuse

I’m still struggling to get above the froth pararanger22. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, we heard all about your world travels before nothing new there.
Let me see, you wrote I “short change the experience gained by politicians when they do these short visits. They get briefed by all the top dogs - not just politicians but business people, embassy professionals, cultural icons in the area, etc. They pack in a lot of info in a short time.” So everyone of importance in Haiti dropped everything to talk to a faux news commentator. Hum!! Interesting, obviously the people in Haiti need much more help then can be imagined.
You wrote “Obama has the gift for gab but no depth - everything he does is like 'the first time' and it showed during the BP crisis - absolute textbook example of how not to handle a crisis”. Let’s see the US got $20 billion out BP, duh SP would have $40 billion I suppose. The right wing doesn’t want to have the government involved in any aspect of the petroleum business, but when there’s a problem they want the government should rush in with special equipment and solve the problem in 24 hours. The word for that begins with the letter H.
You wrote “Palin was a successful governor” . Well at least the word WAS is correct. I suppose if the people being operated on in Tucson, had the doctors leave halfway through the surgery they would consider it successful too. Didn’t SP take an oath of office to serve the people of Alaska. How’s that working for you Alaskans????????
“ and believes in all the big ticket Conservative issues”. Oh yeah, that is big benefits for the corporate super-rich, those less well off can fight and die for the USA. Hell some of them may even be granted posthumous citizenship. And guns, guns, guns. Ok I own a rifle myself, but its not a demi-god
“Her show on Discovery Channel is actually interesting and is something the whole family can watch.“ That’s true but only after Kendra and Kourtney & Khloé, because her’s is more contrived
OMG did I just write KKK. I’m conservative, but suddenly I feel I’ve been foxed.
“Ultimately, guys like you want a highly Liberal, Ivy League graduate, with a JD certificate on the wall that spent time backpacking in Europe in between college and had a stint in the Peace Corps to be President. That's just great. No military experience, no appreciation of DOD and it's complexities, no love for the South”.
No what would be nice is to have a person that’s humble, well educated, willing to always learn, and knows that the USA is part of the world and not the only world. BTW “the South” WTH is that; a special geological region, not of this planet. And it demands to be loved, OK just like SP of course
“and no protection for unborn babies” What is it with this unborn baby hypocrisy.
Everything for the fetus, but after the baby is born and needs; good schooling, health care, a living wage job, the right wing shouts “”YOU”RE ON YOUR OWN, IT’S SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST”” Darwin is right.

Posted by: unoiamrite | January 14, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

In response to
Posts by dalyplanet | January 14, 2011 7:26 PM and 6:53 PM

Your in-dept discussions appreciated.
I'll respond to specific sentences in those two time-stamped posts which are very cogent (& cohesive...).

dalyplanet
My response would be that the entire, clearly workable cap & trade for NOx & SO2 shows that we can systematically lower total emissions from power plants over time. And since an increase of U.S. electricity production occurred since the programs were introduced (Fig. 4.4; JES_USexperience.pdf) this--I belabor the point again--means that emissions can be viably lowered by a government-mandated program.

From there I say that I disagree that all the NOX and SO2 limiting power plant technology widely used today even existed in 1990 with 1990 CAA created the programs. And if you don't buy anything else I write, take as my most serious/important point that CO2 cap and trade will clearly internalize the cost of CO2 emission and create a market pressure to decrease total CO2 emissions. This we gotta do. Gotta.

Responses to your ~posts.
~What solution do you see for a 35% CO2 reduction overall in powerplant emission.~
I can't imagine the technological way to do this in the next 30 years. But I couldn't imagine all the NOx and SO2 abatement technique in use now when 1990 CAA was birthed either.
~There is a serious flaw in your logic. Limiting tiny portion of pollution in overall combustion gas output was relatively easy considering technology was already in service and the % of pollutant to overall combustion gas was exceedingly small.~
dalyplanet, I never proposed that cap and trade with the same parameters for NOx and SO2 would achieve 35% CO limitation in 30 years. I just proposed that cap and trade was not useless and inherently a boondoggle. I wanted to establish that it has already worked quite well. No logic flaw was/is involved just the probably fact that CO2 cap & trade probably won't solve the entire problem. But what if profits
~Removing a few million metric tons of pollution annually & subsequent processing and storage is simple compared to removing thousands of billions of tons of CO2 & its storage. and ~There is no real viable technology to scrub CO2.~
This is absolutely true (spite power company TV commercials disingenuously to the opposite) but then the "5 new" CO2 sequestration techniques that the market will invent in the next 30 yrs that you & I can't imagine may & I propose will surprise us. Putting a cost on CO2 emissions will incentivize creation of that technology cause it increases profits by avoiding fines. This isn't pie-in-the-sky; 1990 CAA did it already with....
~There is no good retrofit for CO2 removal in any existing combustion process. Even if the magic could happen & carbon capture becomes real, storage & management of Gigatons vs million tons is of a scale that is difficult to conceive.

dalyplanet, this is so true but you & I are already trying & doing great. Let's keep it up. More tonight.

Posted by: redhead1990 | January 14, 2011 8:37 PM | Report abuse

IF I can truly justify in my own mind the assertion that anyone whose opinions violate my personal morality is by definition immoral and, worse, may constitute an actual threat to me personally or to the security of my family or my community or my state or my country... Is there any act which I cannot justify by the excuse of pre-emptive self-defense?!?

Posted by: jonroesler | January 14, 2011 7:42 PM | Report abuse

redhead

One more thing,

Half or more of the US was already in compliance or under with Acid Rain standards as the tech was fully developed. What solution do you see for a 35% CO2 reduction overall in powerplant emission.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 14, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

pararanger22,

You still have not answered my questions to you. I will post them again, so as you can't say that you did not see them. K?

Would it be okay with you if an American soldier kills a pregnant woman?

Is it okay with you if a pregnant woman drinks alcohol or smokes tobacco?

As for your frothing session, I never said anything about Afghanistan or about middle east or any of the nonsense you posted, did I? If you claim that I did, perhaps a remedial class in English is on order, no?

Posted by: bushidollar | January 14, 2011 7:20 PM | Report abuse

to bertzel and bushidollar

bushidollarwrote:

["It strikes me as comical, that you consider killing people in pursuit of cheap petroleum okay, but if a woman wants to exercise her natural inalienable right to determine her future and health, that is unacceptable to you."]

bertzel wrote:

["Say you have a 12 year old daughter. You find out she is pregnant. Are you going to force her to have a baby? Or would personal circumstances come into your decision...like, well she was mature enought to have sex (right) she is mature enough to have a baby...I'm not talking raising the baby either...just going through the pregnancy and delivery! Then there is the rape scenario. How about incest? Are you saying absolutely NO rights for the girl here???"]

------------------

bushidollar, you are a full-fledged idiot. As Clausewitz correctly wrote "War is but politics but another means." Soldiers fight where the leaders that the voters from a country of 320M tell them to fight whether it's near an oil country or not. How much oil do you think Afghanistan produces genius? Furthermore, that cheap petroleum isn't so cheap anymore is it? Let's have it your way: let a hostile Nation control the Strait of Hormuz or a significant portion of the middle east oil and gas and stop the fuel from flowing creating an economic catastrophe. Think (if you're capable) of the lost funds for all the welfare programs in our country. Health care; education; everything goes down the tubes. You gotta enough solar panels and corn fuel to replace all the ME oil and gas?

In regards to young pregnant women, bertzel, what kind of decision making capacity does a 12 year old have, exactly? Do you think it will matter to her about the health risks of an abortion? She can't drive, can't vote, can't enlist but you are willing to prescribe that kind of life-changing decision to someone her age? Are you nuts? Hell, while were at it, since our children deserve complete free will, let 'em stay out all night, do drugs, date ex-cons - sky is the limit!

I wonder how many women you two know who have been through an abortion and the effect it has on them. Physically and psychologically. How many Liberal men walk with women protesting for abortion rights ('right on sister!') only because they don't ever want the responsibility for caring for an 'accident' kid. How many of those men walk their women straight to the abortion clinic if there is a 'problem.' Free love just so it doesn't effect...er...me...how brave.

BTW, the New York City Department of Health reported that induced terminations ended about 41 percent of the 214,454 reported pregnancies in the city last year. 60% were African American. How many future scientists, doctors, leaders of the world are just tossed?

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 14, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

redhead

There is a serious flaw in your logic.

Limiting a tiny portion of pollution in the overall combustion gas output was relatively easy considering the technology was already in service and the percent of pollutant to overall combustion gas was exceedingly small. The reduction in Minnesota's pollution output is minimal or none as the technology was already online.

This Acid Rain cap and trade has a small group of interested parties compared to a CO2 cap and trade program eliminating any general market interest. So it is easy to manage and control.

Removing a few million metric tons of pollution annually and subsequent processing and storage is simple compared to removing thousands of billions of tons of CO2 and it's storage.

Currently Nuclear at 20% and hydro and renewables at 10% plus conservation are our only alternatives for electrical generation CO2, plus there are all other sources of CO2 that may fall under a Cap and Trade program. There is no real viable technology to scrub CO2. Without some new technology or a major expansion of likely nuclear, there is no alternative to achieve a 30% to 40% reduction in CO2 output.

Costs of mothballing existing powerplants will be passed to the consumer. There is no good retrofit for CO2 removal in any existing combustion process. Even if the magic could happen and carbon capture becomes real, the storage and management of Gigatons vs million tons is of a scale that is difficult to perceive.


Posted by: dalyplanet | January 14, 2011 6:53 PM | Report abuse

bertzel,

Late term abortions may not be legal but that doesn't mean that isn't what some on the Left would prescribe.

You wrote: "Taking of life is taking of life PERIOD. We put ourselves "in the line of fire". We CHOOSE to enter into war. Therefore we CHOOSE to kill!"

My response: we don't always 'choose' to enter a war. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are good examples of that. I suppose we could choose to keep allowing ourselves to be killed and not fight back - some choice.

The fetus can't fight back.

It isn't an apples to apples comparison - you are completely wrong on this point.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 14, 2011 6:33 PM | Report abuse

more questions ranger and I'll try to make more sense this time (no distractions at the moment)

Say you have a 12 year old daughter. You find out she is pregnant. Are you going to force her to have a baby? Or would personal circumstances come into your decision...like, well she was mature enought to have sex (right) she is mature enough to have a baby...I'm not talking raising the baby either...just going through the pregnancy and delivery!
Then there is the rape scenario. How about incest?
Are you saying absolutely NO rights for the girl here???

Posted by: bertzel | January 14, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 14, 2011 5:13 PM
"The Left will do everything in their power to ensure abortion remains a right no matter if a woman is 1 day or 9 months pregnant; that there are plenty of abortion doctors; that contraception is always the only way to avoid pregnancy (abstinence will never do)."

Wow, just Wow. Way to attribute stuff you don't agree with to your perceived adversary. Would it be okay with you if an American soldier kill a pregnant woman? Is it okay with you if a pregnant woman drinks alcohol or smokes tobacco?

There are many on the "right" that would like to preserve a woman's sovereignty to her body (many a Libertarian come to mind). It is the zealous superstitious k00ks on the right that would like to rescind her right. It strikes me as comical, that you consider killing people in pursuit of cheap petroleum okay, but if a woman wants to exercise her natural inalienable right to determine her future and health, that is unacceptable to you.

Quit frothing, and go have a nice tall beer. Ok?

Posted by: bushidollar | January 14, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The Left will do everything in their power to ensure abortion remains a right no matter if a woman is 1 day or 9 months pregnant; that there are plenty of abortion doctors; that contraception is always the only way to avoid pregnancy (abstinence will never do).

~~From a moral perspective, warfare is acceptable as a means of last resort.
Soldiers must defend the country and its interests abroad from harm.

From a moral perspective, a fetus is alive at conception and it is wrong to destroy the fetus.~~~ranger~~~

As to your perception that:
"The Left will do everything in their power to ensure abortion remains a right no matter if a woman is 1 day or 9 months pregnant;"
That is bull...late term abortions are not legal unless the life of the mother is at stake.
As per YOUR moral perspective;
" warfare is acceptable as a means of last resort. Soldiers must defend the country and its interests abroad from harm.

From a moral perspective, a fetus is alive at conception and it is wrong to destroy the fetus.~~~

Taking of life is taking of life PERIOD. We put ourselves "in the line of fire". We CHOOSE to enter into war. Therefore we CHOOSE to kill!

And while life begins at conception...there is no fetus at that point is there!!
Is it also wrong to kill an animal? That is a life too!
The only point I agree with is when you claim the mother should make the choice...full circle there ranger!

Posted by: bertzel | January 14, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

....The creation of a carbon dioxide commodity market (with all the potential for abuse) from nothing is also alarming. Look to the recent creation of credit default swaps as a commodity derivative, and their effect on world mortgage markets for example. There is inherent financial danger in derivative instruments that have no product as the basis. In other words it is safer to Hedge coal or gas but more risky to Hedge it's combustion gas.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 13, 2011 10:33 PM

In a CO2 cap and trade market similar to that of the recently successful NOx and SO2 markets, there is a real commodity that can be publicly measured and double checked, and whose value can be publicly traded. It's the right to emit a ton of CO2.

This isn't insurance on the possibility that someone else has bet correctly or incorrectly on whether a thousand bundled mortgage holders will or won't default on their mortgages---a credit default swap product. ) I know you know this dalyplanet I'm just being pedantic.)

Quantifiable things like a right to emit a ton of CO2 is even more transparent than many other market items that we don't worry about at all and are traded every day on the U.S. stock and commodities exchanges.

And again, dalyplanet's right in that like all those other openly traded things, fraud and abuse are possible and thereby an inherent financial danger but, I would argue, that's not a reason to avoid a reasonable solution if you gain more than you lose.

Like used car purchases, there's some trust that the players represent themselves openly and even though we all know that this isn't always so, many of us buy used cars (or something like that).

And finally dalyplanet's comment about the competing ways to make money or assure profit stability by the power companies: they will certainly hedge purchases in feed stocks instead of lowering CO2 emissions some of the time (just as they do now in shifting their purchases of coal stocks to decrease SO2 emissions).

But here's the cap and trade take home lesson: it doesn't matter how power companies (legally) lower CO2 emissions; over time the total market emissions go down slowly but systematically by law, slowly helping everyone to learn how to make the most profit inside the system while lowering CO2 emissions.

The U.S. NOx and SO2 cap and trade policies of the past decade prove this can work.

Posted by: redhead1990 | January 14, 2011 5:42 PM | Report abuse

For anyone that cares redhead 1990 posted a link that provides an overview of US electrical generation and a detailed report on Acid rain cap and trade program. It is a good synopsis of carbon based electrical generation and worth a look. Here it is again.

(http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/international/china/JES_USexperience.pdf; The Electricity Journal, 20(7), 47-58).

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 14, 2011 5:22 PM | Report abuse

bertzel posted:

["am not gonna touch your first two priorities....yet. your last one concerning "protection for unborn babies" however, I shall...number one; why is it you believe it is ok to take a human life via warfare....yet it is wrong for a woman to take control of her own body especially when it concerns a fetus...not a fully grown human....and if the woman's life is in danger you still believe the unborn fetus has more rights than that of the woman?
Please explain THAT ranger...I'm all ears!"]

---------------------

Complicated way to phrase a question but a good one at that bertzel. Let's compare and contrast.

From a US perspective, the conduct of war (the authorization to kill/capture) is legal when authorized by the NCA. I suppose their are lots of interpretations about whether or not you need Congress to authorize it too but it's sure a good idea.

From a US perspective, the right to kill an unborn fetus is legal based on Roe v. Wade.

Thus, from a legal perspective, Soldiers (when authorized) may kill designated armed combatants under the prescribed rules of engagement. US Soldiers must also adhere to the Geneva Convention, Status of Forces agreements, and other operation specific constraints. Mothers can kill their unborn fetus under just about any conditions they feel it is warranted to do so. Judge, jury, (and with help) executioner.

US military leaders will do everything possible to avoid killing enemy soldiers. Shows of force, messaging, flexible deterrent operations, limited strikes, et al in concert with accomplishing the mission. As exciting as it may be to enter a blacked-out building that is booby-trapped from top to bottom, Soldiers are more than happy for the opposing armed combatants to just come out and surrender.

The Left will do everything in their power to ensure abortion remains a right no matter if a woman is 1 day or 9 months pregnant; that there are plenty of abortion doctors; that contraception is always the only way to avoid pregnancy (abstinence will never do).

From a moral perspective, warfare is acceptable as a means of last resort. Soldiers must defend the country and its interests abroad from harm.

From a moral perspective, a fetus is alive at conception and it is wrong to destroy the fetus.

To address our last comment 'if the woman's life is in danger you still believe the unborn fetus has more rights than that of the woman?' The million dollar question - a 3-dimensional rubics cube. My response is that the fetus has equal rights to the Mother with one exception. My personal opinion is that if it emerges (MD certified) that the condition of the Mother requires a choice between saving the Mother or saving the fetus, the Mother should make that call.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 14, 2011 5:13 PM | Report abuse

good retort ranger...very impressive.

Posted by: bertzel | January 14, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

~~~~If you want to be emotional about the mass murder of our countrymen and the tragic wounding of our Congresswoman - that is time well-spent. Just don't do it here~~~~ranger~~


WHAT?
Posting the names is not being emotional?

Why do you refuse to answer to any of my posts there ranger?

Posted by: bertzel | January 14, 2011 4:28 PM | Report abuse

blame, aim , name...geeze.

Posted by: bertzel | January 14, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Six (6) people have been MURDERED. Fourteen (14) other people have been wounded.

Christina Greene, 9, was a victim.
John Roll, 63, was a victim.
Dorthy Morris, 76, was a victim.
Phyllis Scheck, 79, was a victim.
Dorwin Stoddard, 76, was a victim.
Gabriel Zimmerman, 30, was a victim.
Gabrielle Giffords, still hospitalized after being shot through the head, is a victim, as are thirteen (13) others who were wounded and have been released.

Sarah Palin is NOT a victim here, and everything is not about Sarah Palin.

Posted by: jonroesler

------------------------

Exactly right. That is why Toles shouldn't have drawn a negative cartoon about Palin - I agree.

If you want to be emotional about the mass murder of our countrymen and the tragic wounding of our Congresswoman - that is time well-spent. Just don't do it here expecting that Conservatives won't defend every insult and barb tossed out at Palin -- because that ain't happening.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 14, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

~~Sarah Palin is NOT a victim here, and everything is not about Sarah Palin.
~~~Posted by: jonroesler~~~

well aware of that jonroesler...have not been in a 'happy mood' for quite sometime...however...if the topic of discussion is about Palin...so be it..I for one have not put blaim on her...so if you don't mind.

Posted by: bertzel | January 14, 2011 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Six (6) people have been MURDERED. Fourteen (14) other people have been wounded.

Christina Greene, 9, was a victim.
John Roll, 63, was a victim.
Dorthy Morris, 76, was a victim.
Phyllis Scheck, 79, was a victim.
Dorwin Stoddard, 76, was a victim.
Gabriel Zimmerman, 30, was a victim.
Gabrielle Giffords, still hospitalized after being shot through the head, is a victim, as are thirteen (13) others who were wounded and have been released.

Sarah Palin is NOT a victim here, and everything is not about Sarah Palin.

Posted by: jonroesler | January 14, 2011 4:13 PM | Report abuse

~~~ Her show on Discovery Channel is actually interesting and is something the whole family can watch.~~~~ranger

I watch the Discovery Channel once in a while...don't need to Discover Palin...
she is already over discoverd.

Posted by: bertzel | January 14, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

~~no appreciation of DOD and it's complexities, no love for the South, and no protection for unborn babies. ~~~ranger~~

am not gonna touch your first two priorities....yet.

your last one concerning "protection for unborn babies" however, I shall...number one; why is it you believe it is ok to take a human life via warfare....yet it is wrong for a woman to take control of her own body especially when it concerns a fetus...not a fully grown human....and if the woman's life is in danger you still believe the unborn fetus has more rights than that of the woman?
Please explain THAT ranger...I'm all ears!

Posted by: bertzel | January 14, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

unoiamrite wrote:

["WOW, I’ve been frothed by pararanger22. What an honor. We don’t hate SP, she is a wealthy comedian. What she should do is talk and write a lot less (I mean the part that isn’t done for her). Think a lot more (quietly would be preferable). And she should WORK in places like Haiti of central Africa for more than 30 minutes of mindless looking, with a private plane ready to whisk her back to la la land. If she did that she would start getting respect she craves.
Why even Jesus would start to think she is a Christian."]

------------------

'Frothed?' I'm hurt...no really...

I'm not sure if backpacking a couple of weeks in Central Africa or Haiti would add that much to Sarah's resume' but hey, that's how liberals think. I spent time in Bangladesh, India, and China last year; I've been to North Africa and all over the Middle East. I get it - it helps to have experience out there but you shortchange the experience gained by politicians when they do these short visits. They get briefed by all the top dogs - not just politicians but business people, embassy professionals, cultural icons in the area, etc. They pack in a lot of info in a short time.

You know, I am sure that a way a politician communicates is important but the Left is really too gullible for the magic of great speech givers. Clinton had the goods in both areas (smarts and ability to communicate) but faulty in a lot of others (morality, defense issues). Bush (W) had trouble with speeches but folks around him said he had a photogenic memory - could recall anything said in any meeting. Obama has the gift for gab but no depth - everything he does is like 'the first time' and it showed during the BP crisis - absolute textbook example of how not to handle a crisis.

Palin was a successful governor and believes in all the big ticket Conservative issues. She was the lightning rod for a very successful movement called the Tea Party. Her show on Discovery Channel is actually interesting and is something the whole family can watch.

Ultimately, guys like you want a highly Liberal, Ivy League graduate, with a JD certificate on the wall that spent time backpacking in Europe in between college and had a stint in the Peace Corps to be President. That's just great. No military experience, no appreciation of DOD and it's complexities, no love for the South, and no protection for unborn babies.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 14, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Pete1013,

Don't get splinters from straddling the fence. You either don't understand and/or care about the current issues - and are thus "only in the paddock to see which horse looks best," or you are in fact determinedly left of center. I believe it is the latter, as you make the assertion that far right extremists have hijacked the GOP, but you do not acknowledge that same fact about the Democrat Party.

No one should waste their energy trying to persuade the "Peter Pans" in the "middle." When the time comes, they'll reflexively take the "if it feels good, do it" path, just as they did in 2008.

Posted by: Belle2664 | January 14, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

~~~Maybe you SHOULD actually watch Sarah and attempt to put aside your vitriol and self-righteous, arrogant liberal attitude. You might actually learn something, and gain a realistic, common-sense perspective, beyond your clueless fantasy world of partisan talking points~~~
shrimper~~

I've watched her from time to time since she first came on the "scene"...I have since come to dislike the idea of her becoming any type of politcal candidate, more and more. I also sincerely doubt that she would ever make President of the U.S.A. tho perhaps it would be a good thing if she did run???

Posted by: bertzel | January 14, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

gunner.. you've just demonstrated that you're just another mindless twit hypocrite that has no clue, or any room to speak of anyone's intellegence or "readiness for primetime". Maybe you SHOULD actually watch Sarah and attempt to put aside your vitriol and self-righteous, arrogant liberal attitude. You might actually learn something, and gain a realistic, common-sense perspective, beyond your clueless fantasy world of partisan talking points.

I know your problem and Toles' and all the rest of you silly little libs.... SHE IS A REAL THREAT... you can say you'll just ignore her all your want... but you CAN'T.... plus the lib media won't .. we just saw this proven by the coverage of the events in Arizona.... they were bent on dragging her INTO it, even before the bodies were cold. Shameless and reprehensible.

So, there's my Friday rant, there Tommy boy.
Hey, maybe the new Democrat slogan can be (in the spirit of a certain former political candidate from NYC)...."...the rant's too damn high.."???

Posted by: Shrimper | January 14, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's "blood libel" video response, in which she said we should condemn violence but did not actually do herself, reminded me of O'Donnell's "I'm not a witch" campaign ad--both reminded people of their negatives while failing to show any positives. I didn't watch the video, but I did read the text of what she said. She's still not ready for prime time. She still seems to incite people rather than calm them. She still seems to have no historical background so that she understands what she is saying. None of these things are a crime, but they do make her unfit for any public office. Let her chatter away on Fox and on the Internet--she's increasing easy to ignore.

Posted by: ptgrunner | January 14, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: pete1013 | January 14, 2011 11:05 AM
I'd like to address this to all of the conservative commenters here: you are catering to the right wing base, which only serves to drive people like myself away from your position. The extremism that has seized control of the Republican party is not something that I would ever vote for. Conclusion being that your rhetoric frightens swing voters, the base will always be with each party, it is the 10-20% of us in the center that you need to win over. And over the last 2+ years your voice have been assuring that we will swing the other way. Just sayin'...
-----------------------------------------------
Petey, how did that work out for you in the election 2 months ago? The only critters you see in the middle of the road are dead skunks, squirrels, and possums. Blue Dogs and RINOs all eventually meet the same fate - just sayin'......

Posted by: ddaly7 | January 14, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

WOW, I’ve been frothed by pararanger22. What an honor. We don’t hate SP, she is a wealthy comedian. What she should do is talk and write a lot less (I mean the part that isn’t done for her). Think a lot more (quietly would be preferable). And she should WORK in places like Haiti of central Africa for more than 30 minutes of mindless looking, with a private plane ready to whisk her back to la la land. If she did that she would start getting respect she craves.
Why even Jesus would start to think she is a Christian.

Posted by: unoiamrite | January 14, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Toles, I also watched the Palin video and I was extremely disappointed. There was no free t-shirt offer and she didn't have a witch doctor introduce her.....

Posted by: ddaly7 | January 14, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin gets more attention because she is always putting her foot in her mouth.

Posted by: Rudesan | January 14, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin gets more attention precisely because of some of the less elegant attacks on her. It's unfortunate that some on the left feel the need to make fun of her for anything but the obvious reason; that reason being that she has not the knowledge, skills or abilities to be anything close to a respected or qualified national political figure.

She has proven in countless interviews that she does not grasp complex national and international issues. She has proven that she is not dedicated enough to public service to be awarded a national position (imagine if a Democratic governor would have resigned before completion of their term in order to "write" books and make big bucks on the speaking tour...conservatives would have tripped over themselves to criticize such a person). She has proven an inability to be appropriate in her tone and her responses...proven quite dramatically in this whole Arizona incident.

Unfortunately, some feel the need to belittle her for things that are meaningless compared to the above. And this, as I said, has the opposite effect. She sounds like a relatively good mom and wife (though some of her actions I would say fall short in the "roll model" aspect of parenting), she's camera friendly (I know lots of people like that), and she knows a little about how to stir up an audience.

Beyond that, she has not demonstrated to me that she is anything to be taken seriously in terms of a vision for future leadership in the nation/world. The "ideas" she has, are hackneyed talking points taken from old GOP playbooks of the Reagan era. She offers no solutions to health care issues, international affairs, sustainability, and economic issues, other than "less government, more liberty", whatever that means.

I, like others, wish the media would stop paying attention to her. She's a major distraction from the kinds of serious things and serious people we should be hearing/talking about. But, her antics get ratings, so she's not going away anytime soon.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | January 14, 2011 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Fire your webmaster

A really feel affront
My mouse wheel takes the brunt.
Following mindless wit
of so many a twit
Having to read from back to front.

Posted by: zeprider | January 14, 2011 11:48 AM | Report abuse

TT – One of today’s supporters suggests that if you guys in the news business would stop giving Palin coverage, she’d eventually go away. I see what the writer means, totally, but I’m afraid s/he’s being a bit naive. Your purpose is to report and reflect on stories with the best data you can muster. And someone like Palin is about the best data you have for understanding ignorance in politics, exposing the dark side of the right wingers, and presenting the cultural reality that what we once called "critical thinking" is now being trumped by the atrophied cognition of her ilk. Please keep Palin in your (Dare I say it??)“crosshairs,” and be advised that the best way to make her go away is not to ignore her, but rather to repeatedly poke at her and the radical sentiments that she represents.

Posted by: dudeupnorth | January 14, 2011 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I'd like to address this to all of the conservative commenters here:

There is a lot of political landscape to the left of your position, and not all of it is liberal, socialist or marxist. Yet you assume that anyone who supports a position even slightly socially minded, with the slightest bit of a social conscious is liberal, socialist or marxist. Being a political centrist, I have some slightly conservative views and some slightly liberal views, so I get it from both sides. Sure, I myself have resorted to muck slinging at times, with no good excuse, except that sometimes your tone really pisses me off. Which I suppose is the intent. The point being that you are catering to the base, which only serves to drive people like myself away from your position. I am more likely to vote for a moderate Republican (if such a thing exists anymore) than a liberal Democrat. However, the extremism that has seized control of the Republican party is not something that I would ever vote for. Conclusion being that your rhetoric frightens swing voters, the base will always be with each party, it is the 10-20% of us in the center that you need to win over. And over the last 2+ years your voice have been assuring that we will swing the other way.

Oh and you really don't have to be liberal to dislike Sarah Palin. I wouldn't vote for her ever, in my opinion she represents the worst that the Republican party has to offer.

Just sayin'...

Posted by: pete1013 | January 14, 2011 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Bob Moses, why are you calling liberals "Mindless"?

We certainly have a different vision of how to keep America a vital pleasant place to live. We are as passionate about our approach as you are. We are certainly as thoughtful. Please be as respectful of us as you would like us to be of you. At least try to use a more respectful tone.

Bob wrote:
The Post has two cartoonists. Why do both of them have to be mindless liberal partisans? Not enough liberal partisan pundits on staff?

If the media was not dominated by liberals, the Democrats would never win an election.

Posted by: bobmoses

Posted by: charnish | January 14, 2011 10:32 AM | Report abuse

unoiamrite wrote:

"[SP has the intellectual heft of Odie™, Garfield’s™ best friend. If she had the looks of Golda Meir AND Golda’s political acumen she would be NOTHING in the GOP. Go ahead right-wing boys, make SP your leader, the world needs a hearty laugh."]

----------------------------

Another sexist comment from the Left attack dogs. The author 'Robin from Berkely' wrote a great article in the American Thinker in 2009. The following qoute describes the Liberals immoral propaganda campaign against Palin:

"Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women, but it's far worse: many are perpetuators. The Left's behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her. They are wilding her...[T]he Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women...will vote Democrat...Liberals do this by calling her a c__, ogling her legs, demeaning her with names like "slutty flight attendant" and "Trailer Park Barbie," and exposing her flesh on the cover of Newsweek.
Nothing is off-limits, not actress Sandra Bernhard's wish that Palin be gang-raped or the sexualization of Palin's daughters.
As every woman knows, leering looks, lurid words, and veiled threats are intended to evoke terror. Sexual violence is a form of terrorism."

Why do Liberal extremists hate Sarah? She is married; has children; against abortion; a grandmother; believes in God; can handle herself - by herself (drop her out in the wilderness of AK and she'll be just fine, thank you); strong willed; and successful.

The GOP may not nominate Sarah for POTUS in 2012. She has made enough gaffes to warrant a strong look at the whole field of potential candidates. But because the Libs hate her, if she wins the nomination, Conservatives will go to the mat to defend her, just to spite the Left.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 14, 2011 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Tom, do we ALL really like our government?

What could be more anti-government than the very concept "Starve the Beast"?

Posted by: rowens1 | January 14, 2011 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Tom, do we ALL really like our government?

What could be more anti-government than the very concept "Starve the Beast"?

Posted by: rowens1 | January 14, 2011 10:17 AM | Report abuse

The ratio of trolls to reasoned comments seems much lower today.

Perhaps there is hope!

Posted by: billh39 | January 14, 2011 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Threatening to shoot people and attack them with vicious animals is not likely to win you a lot of friends, except among those who like this sort of thing. What did she expect?

Posted by: DaveHarris | January 14, 2011 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Civility,,we dont need no stinkin civility.

Posted by: schmidt1 | January 14, 2011 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Satire helps to set the tone. In this form of government, the citizenry is responsible in that regard, but political cartoonists can go a long way -- and one way or the other -- to assist.

Posted by: kalacaw | January 14, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Toles you are as sage in your opinion as you are funny with your cartoons. Please keep it up and along the way work with others to give America some solutions.

I have proposed a ton of them but I don't reach the public like you do.

Gary Brumback
www.democracypowernow.com

Posted by: garybrumback1 | January 14, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

The Post has two cartoonists. Why do both of them have to be mindless liberal partisans? Not enough liberal partisan pundits on staff?

If the media was not dominated by liberals, the Democrats would never win an election.

Posted by: bobmoses | January 14, 2011 8:29 AM | Report abuse

SP has the intellectual heft of Odie™, Garfield’s™ best friend. If she had the looks of Golda Meir AND Golda’s political acumen she would be NOTHING in the GOP. Go ahead right-wing boys, make SP your leader, the world needs a hearty laugh.

Posted by: unoiamrite | January 14, 2011 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Sure those aren't Democrats watching the libs version of the Shoot Out at the OK Corral featuring the bad guy lib media gang launching a fusillade of bogus lie bullets at an unarmed Sarah Palin

Posted by: billybeer6 | January 14, 2011 6:39 AM | Report abuse

While empiricism ("what works") is a good place to start, it's also important to enlarge the question. "What works for whom?" is a better question. What works for the plutocrat does not work for the "little people" (cf. the Swedish BP exec's comment).

A better yardstick might just be the Torah's questions:

If I am not for me, who will be?
If I am only for me, who am I?
If not now, when?

Posted by: DougMUSN | January 14, 2011 6:10 AM | Report abuse

always count on liberals to ramp up the demonization of Americans, just as obama does.

after their rejection by America on 11/2, they learned that they cant win the argument so it on to their demonizations and lies

Posted by: M_Algore | January 14, 2011 4:44 AM | Report abuse

Truly pitiful piece of drek.

Frankly, the problem here is that the Left and the Euro-trash who inhabit the WashPost just don't know how to step away from this.

First, give up the hating. You don't have a moral standing to criticize anyone else.

For one thing your disinterest in controlling hallucinogenics and other hard narcotics led this young man astray and that's why he was all at once out there shooting up people and assassinating a Republican federal judge.

You people, and no others, have blood on your hands in this.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 13, 2011 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Good comment TT (and good toon too!).

What they taught us in various dispute resolution courses was exactly what you're getting at. Try to bring everyone back to the common values that may be present in the room, and work from that point of agreement. The problem is the entrenched positions that some people take...whereby anything but exactly what they want is considered unacceptable. Finding common ground in disputes can be done, but not all the time. I would venture a guess that political and ideological disputes are the worst.

Facts, evidence, experimental data, statistical analysis, all these can sometimes mean nothing when someone has already made up their mind as to what they "choose" to believe. Even if a wolf shows up everytime you cry "wolf", there are always some who, while getting their foot knawed off, will look at you and say, "Okay, it's big and hungry and is eating me, but I still don't think it's a wolf".

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | January 13, 2011 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Double posts suck. No doubt about it.

Posted by: chaunceygardener | January 13, 2011 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Let us work with what works. Works for me.
"If the root is sound and the soil is good, there will be growth in the spring".

Posted by: chaunceygardener | January 13, 2011 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Let us work with what works. Works for me.
"If the root is sound and the soil is good, there will be growth in the spring".

Posted by: chaunceygardener | January 13, 2011 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Let's try this one:

The Health Care Reform Law has been put into place because we had an out-of-control and expensive health care system that wasn't working for a large number of Americans. Most Americans think that's unacceptable, so it can't stay that way. Say what you will about the law itself, but it does address those problems. If nothing else, if absolutely nothing else, it will get most of those people coverage so they can get decent health care without visiting an ER or going broke because they got sick.

Now, the Republicans don't like the law and want to repeal it. They think it's wrong for many reasons, financial, "socialism," etc. Fine. What is their plan to solve the problems this one was put into place to solve?

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | January 13, 2011 10:55 PM | Report abuse

~~~how are you going to remove this sense of controversy?~~~

Posted by: eezmamata

I cannot, but I have chosen to swim against the current here. The issue is not black or white and looking to only one side of the argument is shortsighted. Listening to arguments presented here has caused me to examine my opinions regarding this issue. I am hopeful that some of my thoughtful or outrageous comments have provoked thought also within this particular fishbowl.

Change in the electrical energy industry has been continuous since its birth less than 100 years ago. The recent aspect of morality in this change is alarming to me. The creation of a carbon dioxide commodity market (with all the potential for abuse) from nothing is also alarming. Look to the recent creation of credit default swaps as a commodity derivative, and their effect on world mortgage markets for example. There is inherent financial danger in derivative instruments that have no product as the basis. In other words it is safer to Hedge coal or gas but more risky to Hedge it's combustion gas.

I am not here to change anyone's mind per se but to try to shed some light on this murky subject and learn from those here.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 13, 2011 10:33 PM | Report abuse

As usual, great piece by Toles followed by drivel from Right Wing "readers."

Posted by: rjoff | January 13, 2011 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Sure Tom. Never mind that we vehemently disagree on what constitutes liberty, justice and prosperity -- a age old dispute over which men are willing to kill and die. Tolerance is but a privilege, understanding nothing more than a favor, and we will never see eye to eye so long as you keep coming after my guns.

Posted by: pcannady | January 13, 2011 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Looks like liberals are trying to control their own dreams.

Posted by: jornolibist | January 13, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

but dalyplanet, remember, you have to convince the goobers that you have a reasonable argument as well.

The liberals have latched on to the global warming issue, and potential solutions, as a moral issue. This is certainly useless when presented as a moral issue to their conservative political enemies.

If one side says it's blue, the other side says it's green. They must, or they risk losing points in the game. With the various political parasites making a living off the controversy itself, how are you going to remove this sense of controversy?

Simply presenting logical arguments for or against in a politically charged environment may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.

Good luck.

Posted by: eezmamata | January 13, 2011 9:08 PM | Report abuse

redhead1990

I am pleased to see you here with a reasonable argument for cap and trade. The discussion needs to happen and I am looking for enlightenment. The example you give had a relatively easy solution though, use cleaner coal and implement scrubber technology. Plus part of the solution has been to burn nat gas for electrical generation and there is concern that this resource will become more expensive and has in the recent past. Cost has shifted from electricity production to food production with more expensive nat gas, so I do not believe this solution has been free.

There is a limit to renewable energy's contribution to world electrical demand in the nearer future. Some proposed solutions such as carbon capture reduce efficiency significantly and have potential serious negative consequences. Markets are prone to abuse and excesses.

You seem much more informed than the usual poster here including myself. What do you see as a viable energy mix in twenty years regarding electrical production. Conservation can only slow the increasing demand for energy.

Thank you for your reasoned input to this important conversation. I think that newspapers would be well served with a science writer to further discussion outside the political realm.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 13, 2011 8:51 PM | Report abuse

"No wonder leftists don't want a cross displayed."

Tell us more about this not wanting a cross displayed, and how the 'leftist hatred' of Sarah Palin has anything to do with that.

Really, I mean give us some insight. Help us to better understand gooberity, maybe if there's some logic to it we won't laugh so hard at you.

Posted by: eezmamata | January 13, 2011 8:40 PM | Report abuse

The leftist blood sucking leech media in this great country all together blamed Sarah Palin for the Tucson murders within the hour and now you leeches have the audacity to blame her for taking time to put slime in its place! No wonder leftists don't want a cross displayed.

Posted by: bignoisylawnmower | January 13, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

quiensabe, it appears political humor is over your head. When it makes fun of things you think it shouldn't , you think it's wrong.

Well, it is funny. And yes, Sarah Palin has been reduced in stature. Once I thought she was a reasonably intelligent political celebrity, raking in the dough on careful maintenance of controversy between the screaming liberals and shrieking conservatives.

But this last one .... ahhhhhh, it was foot stamping, it was a tantrum. It was juvenile.

She really is, after all, just what most people think she is, when they aren't trying to defend their own political ideology in front of someone who doesn't share it.

Posted by: eezmamata | January 13, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Do you know that Glock handgun sales are up after the shooting? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. If it's not, then you are doing a disservice.

Also, Palin is not shrinking in stature. If you're truly interested in empiricism, then you should temper your rhetoric as well.

Posted by: quiensabe | January 13, 2011 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Reposts:
An increase between 1990 and 2006 of 35% electricity generation in the U.S. while at the same time a decrease of 45% for NOx and 39% SO2 all coming almost exclusively using the same power plants using cap and trade.

Has this process of deceasing acid rain emission components over the past decade in the U.S. using a market-based approach caused an increase in the average cost of electricity in the U.S.?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Short/clear answer: no, it's gone down slightly. Data I've posted here come from:

(http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/international/china/JES_USexperience.pdf; The Electricity Journal, 20(7), 47-58).

Cap and trade in the U.S. for those pollutants has allowed us to significantly drop their emissions with basically no cost to electricity consumers, decrease in company profits, or cost to U.S. tax payers.

How come?

It's because putting a cost on previously external factors (NOx and SO2 emissions that cause acid rain) internalizes that cost in the production of U.S. electricity, and thereby raises the cost of NOx and SO2 emissions from electric power plants, and so the market naturally responds by avoiding that cost.

This is the same as PrairieDog60's call for a carbon tax, but it is, I propose more politically palatable than "a tax" and yet works inside the energy market. And the past results with NOX and SO2 are hard data of proven success in the U.S.

So the market naturally responds by avoiding the newly internalized cost and incorporates new technologies, some unimagined when the acid rain cap and trade was first proposed.
dalyplanet's question of how much CO2 cap and trade can accomplish over the next 30 years is an excellent place to go next:

How will an electric company (indeed the entire U.S. electricity market) respond to the small financial (regulatory) cost of additional CO2 emissions over 10 years when the CO2 emissions credits increase systematically every year? PrairieDog60 has already set the stage for some answers....

Posted by: redhead1990 | January 13, 2011 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Toles,

Ya know, the problem with Palin is that you (the press) keep granting her audience. If only you would just ignore her, she would go away. I mean with out the press for and audience, only thing she would be able to do is post delusional msgs on FBook and youtube. FBook and youtube is fill with so much noise, Pallin' Palin's banal and inane clatter would get downed out in the rest of muck. Sort of like someone passing gas in a hurricane or "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it..." Also consider what a normal Joe is going to like, a xtranormal.com char singing "I'm not your daddy, I'm you grandpa!" or some high pitched scratchy voiced screed from Palin? Dig?

Posted by: bushidollar | January 13, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I've actually thought of this and sometimes wonder why it doesn't seem to get used a lot. We all have the same basic goals, usually, anyways. Is it just that tearing down the opposition and their plans is easier than trying to explain what you want to do and how it will work and what it will accomplish? Or could it be, as I sometimes fear, it's just plain more effective?

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | January 13, 2011 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Can't hurt to try some problem solving. But don't expect the Beck's of the world (and that could be anyone con artist shill left/right peddling nonsense for millions of $$) to stop. They have millions of reasons to keep doing what has produced millions of $$ already. Hopfully people will start moving away from listening. If not we still can respectfully listen and then go back to solving the actually problems and not the hallucinated ones.

Posted by: kchses1 | January 13, 2011 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company