DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - What's cap-and-trade without a mandatory cap?

**Bobdilan** · 06-18-2008, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Ramo
But I suppose that it's possible that McCain only uses bizarre and confusing language to talk about his climate change agenda, as opposed to being genuinely confused about the content... It's not bizarre. It may be confusing to you, but to me it seems rather easy to understand what he is getting at.

At worst he just didn't understand what was meant by "mandatory cap(s)" in the question(s). He at least seems to be consistent in how he addresses "mandatory cap(s)".

Personally if someone asked me what "mandatory caps" were, I'd say they were hard caps, since if the cap is soft, it isn't a specific mandatory cap value, which "mandatory cap" without qualification tends to suggest. Other people would read it differently, which is why in the end what matters is the actual implementation, not some nebulously worded moniker for it.

Mandatory cap is conveniently defined in this question by the system that the EU operates by. Actually, the question dealing with the EU didn't use the term "cap" at all. It used "targets". (Note the "s" as well.) Perhaps that was a source of confusion as well.

Not so easy being semantically correct, now is it? And here you get to type it out, look up definitions and references, edit it, and all that jazz. This ridiculous fixation on semantic mistakes in our political system only serves to make sure we end up with talking heads reading teleprompters, and avoidance of real issues by both candidates and voters.

It's also defined as a singular quantity ("mandatory cap"), as opposed to a specific quantity for many individual entities (which would be "mandatory caps"). "Senator McCain, you are in favor of mandatory caps." - Russert

"It's not quote mandatory caps." - McCain

I don't think the singular/plural thing has any real impact, as the question is asked with and without the "s", without even the cap part (targets) and answered with and without the "s" as well. But they are presumably all talking about the same thing. (Or assuming they are.)

Besides, a mandatory cap can refer to a type of cap, which is singular, even if the the cap would be applied in many instances. Simply saying "mandatory cap" instead of "mandatory caps" does not mean the cap must be economy-wide rather than entity specific.

It isn't. It sets very conservative targets (more appropriate for the situation several years ago), and doesn't auction the carbon credits (instead would hand them out). See, it's not so hard to actually deal with the issue, now is it?

06-18-2008, 01:41 AM	#10
Bobdilan Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 339 Senior Member	Originally posted by Ramo But I suppose that it's possible that McCain only uses bizarre and confusing language to talk about his climate change agenda, as opposed to being genuinely confused about the content... It's not bizarre. It may be confusing to you, but to me it seems rather easy to understand what he is getting at. At worst he just didn't understand what was meant by "mandatory cap(s)" in the question(s). He at least seems to be consistent in how he addresses "mandatory cap(s)". Personally if someone asked me what "mandatory caps" were, I'd say they were hard caps, since if the cap is soft, it isn't a specific mandatory cap value, which "mandatory cap" without qualification tends to suggest. Other people would read it differently, which is why in the end what matters is the actual implementation, not some nebulously worded moniker for it. Mandatory cap is conveniently defined in this question by the system that the EU operates by. Actually, the question dealing with the EU didn't use the term "cap" at all. It used "targets". (Note the "s" as well.) Perhaps that was a source of confusion as well. Not so easy being semantically correct, now is it? And here you get to type it out, look up definitions and references, edit it, and all that jazz. This ridiculous fixation on semantic mistakes in our political system only serves to make sure we end up with talking heads reading teleprompters, and avoidance of real issues by both candidates and voters. It's also defined as a singular quantity ("mandatory cap"), as opposed to a specific quantity for many individual entities (which would be "mandatory caps"). "Senator McCain, you are in favor of mandatory caps." - Russert "It's not quote mandatory caps." - McCain I don't think the singular/plural thing has any real impact, as the question is asked with and without the "s", without even the cap part (targets) and answered with and without the "s" as well. But they are presumably all talking about the same thing. (Or assuming they are.) Besides, a mandatory cap can refer to a type of cap, which is singular, even if the the cap would be applied in many instances. Simply saying "mandatory cap" instead of "mandatory caps" does not mean the cap must be economy-wide rather than entity specific. It isn't. It sets very conservative targets (more appropriate for the situation several years ago), and doesn't auction the carbon credits (instead would hand them out). See, it's not so hard to actually deal with the issue, now is it?
	Quote