The problem with rationing is that there are too many ways to game the system. Really that's a potential problem with all systems, so part of the trick is to come up with something that minimizes the opportunities for cheating..

That's right. Companies are going to comply by shutting their US plants, which are relatively clean, and open new ones in the BRICs which zero pollution controls.

And as a special bonus, they can fire all those pesky over-paid Americans AND pay fewer taxes. Sounds like a plan businesses can really rally around.

I'm surpised companies aren't begging for tighter US emissions rules.

This isn't a new phenomena. From the time the very first emission rules were promolgated in California putting rules on manufacturers while permitting the import of the same products from locations without rules condemns the local manufacturers.

I find it difficult to tell if all the world's legislatures are filled with blithering idiots or they are simply bought and paid for. Maybe both.

The Climate Bill (H.R. 2454) includes allocations for products which are imported, as I understand it. There is also mention of exemption for exported products. This is a very big bill and I don't claim to have complete grasp of it yet.

But, I was trying to focus only on transport fuels, which are most often consumed by individuals or small companies, who would not be directly covered by the cap-and-trade system in the climate bill, in which the allocations are only issued to entities which produce electricity or with produce emissions in excess of 25,000 tons per year. One needs to study the definitions under SEC. 312, which modifies Sec 700 in Title VII of the Clean Air Act, especially sub paragraph (13), COVERED ENTITY.

The direct allocation of transport fuels thru rationing would be difficult to game. This would be especially true if the allocations had a limited lifetime. There would thus be no way to accumulate the allocations. The Cap-and-Trade proposal allows banking of allocations. The rationing system would need a white market to smooth out the bumps in the allocations and would be a place for excess allocations after the expiration period. Again, it would be difficult to game such a system, as the official trading system would provide a floor on the value of allocations and the allocations would go directly to individual consumers.

As for the long term effectiveness of this Act, I think that the resulting consumer revolt would allow the Repugs to repeatedly pound in the notion that all the increases in cost of living over the next 4 years are the result of Cap-and-trade. The Repugs could blame the inflation from the Fed and Treasury's efforts to re-inflate the debit bubble on this, since the average 'Merican won't be able to see the difference. I think this could push the Democrats out of control after the next Presidential Election cycle...

E. Swanson

If you are going to call Republicans, Repugs it seems only fair to call Democrats, Damnocrats. I would prefer neither since it reflects poorly on the Oildrum.

Actually, I would rather call the Republicans of the Lush Numbrain/Darth Cheney faction something like "ReThugs", for their insistence that military bullying is the best approach to handling our relations with the rest of the world. You know, these guys label anyone that tries to fight us "terrorists", while calling our invading military forces "patriots". RePugs is a bit less inflammatory, but gets my feelings across too.

The sad thing is that the "Kill 'em all, let doG sort them out" solution may turn out to be the only way to deal with the fundamentalist fanatics...

E. Swanson

Does name-calling improve your logic?

I need all the help I can get. Got any logic to offer?

E. Swanson

Black Dog is being quite gentle.

I personally think that all those responsible for electin--then reelecting!--that national and global catastrophe GWB should be at the very least disqualified from ever voting again as they have shown themselves to be incapable of making rational judgments.