BBC NEWS | Business | Big jump in Spanish unemployment
BBC NEWS | Business | Spanish economy shrinks rapidlySpain was until recently one of Europe's fastest growing economies, but the global financial crisis has hit the country hard, particularly affecting the property and construction sectors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/bu...1.6018106.htmlThe near-collapse of its key construction industry has hit the economy hard.
Spanish builders constructed 750,000 houses and apartments last year, more than France and Germany combined, while annual demand runs about 60 percent of that, according to the Finance Ministry.That proof enough?Spanish home prices have more than doubled since 1998, exceeding growth rates in Britain and Ireland, two of Europe's fastest-growing markets.
I've been speed reading the bill and may have posted in error about the tree planting. It appears voluntary. However,other things bother me. States will have to adopt new building codes with strict energy efficiency requirements which are in accordance with International standards. New buildings and substantially renovated older buildings will have to meet the requirements. Your home will be labeled based upon its energy efficiency and will be reported on the tax records. Property appraisers will be required to consider the compliance of your home with the new standards when appraising. If it would cost thousands to bring your home to par,then that is subtracted from the appraisal,thus a bank would loan you less as would a purchaser pay less.This could not come at a worse time for banks holding large portfolios of older homes as they will have to write down the values. One unusual provision is that if the home is efficient and you are borrowing to purchase the home the bank has to add to your income the estimated annual energy savings. More loans to people without income?
The bill passed lacks the necessary tooth policies required to actually combat emissions. Instead of having hard strict policies on how credits are dolled out, it has questionable writings with only 15% being sold. I highly suspect that without strong writings requiring a decrease in credits given, we'll see the same outcome as Europe and Kyoto, where government simply just gives as many credits to highly polluting industries as they need. Furthermore, the outrageous number of compromises to get the bill through ensures that a great many of polluters will comply with a form rather than a substance of the law, thus failing to actually do what we want.
We should have done something imitating the sulfur market if a cap and trade was the way to go. IMO, the problem with cap and trade is that you must know how much the environment can handle and how much of a change is tolerable. That more or less existed for sulfur. It does not for carbon. Thus, a carbon tax would be preferable as rates could increase to incorporate better information. And we could apply emissions tax on imports that do not build the price in to level the playing field.
This is a bad law that will eventually bite the environmentalists in the butt. Principle it is not a bad idea, but as so many good ideas go into Washington, they turn into total garbage coming out.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.-WSJ
"Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.
Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families."
"Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them."
"Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality."
U G L Y.....
If environmentalists really want to save the environment so badly they should kill themselves and provide fertlizer for the earth. Much more effective and minimizes the noxious emissions coming out of various orifices.