Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
That's rich coming from an imperialist who called for a national income tax and a national inheritance tax.
That's rich coming from an imperialist who called for a national income tax and a national inheritance tax.
That's what's great about America, different people have different views. One should passionately support candidates that they feel support their views and protect the interests that are important to them. I view Teddy Roosevelt as one of the greatest presidents in our country's history. The turn of the last century was a period of rapid and reckless consumption of our natural resources. I am thankful for TR's strong leadership and movement to protect and preserve our environment and resources through the establishments of national parks and wildlife refuges. I am also thankful for his support of labor and the regulatory actions he took to curb the exploitation of the American people by trusts, monopolies, and corrupt business practices. Unlike today's politicians, he was neither bought off and controlled by business nor did he use his wealth and privilege to build his own fortune. Theodore Roosevelt was a man of integrity and principle, he had his flaws, but he listened and answered to the American people.
The carbon trading system is a scam. How can one possibly have "credits"? The entire basis for it is demeaning to anyone who actually tried to reduce their impact on the environment.
A pipe dream if there ever was one.
Educate yourself a little. The SOx NOx trading system run by the EPA is their most cost effective environmental program. Industry generates credits by voluntarily reducing emissions and then selling those credits to someone who needs them. It's a program proposed by conservative economists who recommended it as a better system than command and control emissions regulation. The CO2 credit trading program would work the same way.
Educate yourself a little. The SOx NOx trading system run by the EPA is their most cost effective environmental program. Industry generates credits by voluntarily reducing emissions and then selling those credits to someone who needs them. It's a program proposed by conservative economists who recommended it as a better system than command and control emissions regulation. The CO2 credit trading program would work the same way.
Without something else to measure performance, saying something is best doesn't mean a whole lot. Best according to whom and measured against what?
So if an industry generates credits (also called making something out of thin air) and then someone who needs to pollute more can buy them, there is no gain of anything.
It really doesn't matter who proposed or recommended it, conservative or liberal because the issue is not a conservative or liberal one. Bringing that up just politicized something that shouldn't be.
Two scenarios and we'll keep it light:
1. Industry A reduced their impact so they generate a credit. Along comes Industry B that buys or trades for the credit so they don't have to do what Industry A did, reduce their impact.
2. Industry A reduced their impact. Industry B did not. Deal with Industry B.
Scenario 2 could be accomplished, but scenario 1 avoids solving the problem. Its a money manipulation scheme, little more. It makes people feel good because unless you think about the peter paul principle never rears its ugly head.
If I generate 10 tons of carbon emissions in a year and reduce it to 5 and thus generate a carbon credit that the next guy then buys or trades for and he generates an extra 5 tons just where is the benefit other than some scheme of commerce? Sure, it looks like there was a benefit, I reduced my carbon footprint but so what, through a manipulation of design, the next guy negated that benefit.
It can be explained in a very complex way so that it appears to accomplish some objective when it really doesn't.
Supposedly, the payments or trades for the reduction of my carbon footprint are rewarded by the transfer of money or other things to me from the other person, thus rewarding me in some way or helping me offset the costs of reducing my carbon footprint.
Hardly, I can already obtain huge sums from grants issued by the federal, state and local governments (tax payer money) to finance the effort to lower my carbon footprint. You, me and everyone else is paying for that.
If I can reduce my carbon footprint then I should to the extent I can without jeopardizing myself. The rewards already exist in the form of no-repayment government assistance. Now, if those programs were eliminated, that would be one thing but they aren't this is just a layer on top so that the benefits of government assistance can be accessed through manipulation of the carbon credit scheme.
How easy is it to manipulate the system to actually increase the carbon foot print of both industries? Simple really, Industry A reduces their carbon footprint and sells credits to industry B. Industry A then purchases from Industry B. What just happened? Industry A didn't really lower its carbon footprint, it simply shuffled the deck and it would be different if someone was really watching the kitchen but they aren't, it has become nothing less than a scam.
Without something else to measure performance, saying something is best doesn't mean a whole lot. Best according to whom and measured against what?
So if an industry generates credits (also called making something out of thin air) and then someone who needs to pollute more can buy them, there is no gain of anything.
It really doesn't matter who proposed or recommended it, conservative or liberal because the issue is not a conservative or liberal one. Bringing that up just politicized something that shouldn't be.
Two scenarios and we'll keep it light:
1. Industry A reduced their impact so they generate a credit. Along comes Industry B that buys or trades for the credit so they don't have to do what Industry A did, reduce their impact.
2. Industry A reduced their impact. Industry B did not. Deal with Industry B.
Scenario 2 could be accomplished, but scenario 1 avoids solving the problem. Its a money manipulation scheme, little more. It makes people feel good because unless you think about the peter paul principle never rears its ugly head.
If I generate 10 tons of carbon emissions in a year and reduce it to 5 and thus generate a carbon credit that the next guy then buys or trades for and he generates an extra 5 tons just where is the benefit other than some scheme of commerce? Sure, it looks like there was a benefit, I reduced my carbon footprint but so what, through a manipulation of design, the next guy negated that benefit.
It can be explained in a very complex way so that it appears to accomplish some objective when it really doesn't.
Supposedly, the payments or trades for the reduction of my carbon footprint are rewarded by the transfer of money or other things to me from the other person, thus rewarding me in some way or helping me offset the costs of reducing my carbon footprint.
Hardly, I can already obtain huge sums from grants issued by the federal, state and local governments (tax payer money) to finance the effort to lower my carbon footprint. You, me and everyone else is paying for that.
If I can reduce my carbon footprint then I should to the extent I can without jeopardizing myself. The rewards already exist in the form of no-repayment government assistance. Now, if those programs were eliminated, that would be one thing but they aren't this is just a layer on top so that the benefits of government assistance can be accessed through manipulation of the carbon credit scheme.
How easy is it to manipulate the system to actually increase the carbon foot print of both industries? Simple really, Industry A reduces their carbon footprint and sells credits to industry B. Industry A then purchases from Industry B. What just happened? Industry A didn't really lower its carbon footprint, it simply shuffled the deck and it would be different if someone was really watching the kitchen but they aren't, it has become nothing less than a scam.
The problem is you spout off with no knowledge about the subject. Read a little bit and you'll embarass yourself less. Cap and Trade | US EPA
Wet sulfate deposition decreased 43 percent in the Northeast and 44 percent in the Midwest under the ARP. Wet nitrogen deposition also decreased in the Northeast by 27 percent and in the Midwest by 16 percent. These reductions in sulfur and nitrogen deposition have resulted in positive changes in environmental indicators, including improved water quality in lakes and streams.
The program has reduced SO2 emissions faster and at far lower costs than anticipated, yielding wide-ranging health and environmental improvements. A 2003 Office of Management and Budget study (PDF) (234 pp, 2.4M, About PDF) found that the ARP accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits—over $70 billion annually—of any federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with annual benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1―for every dollar spent on implementing this cap and trade program, 40 dollars are returned in health and environmental benefits. A 2005 study (PDF) (15 pp, 532K, About PDF) estimated the program’s benefits at $122 billion annually in 2010, while cost estimates are around $3 billion annually (in 2000 dollars).
If I generate 10 tons of carbon emissions in a year and reduce it to 5 and thus generate a carbon credit that the next guy then buys or trades for and he generates an extra 5 tons just where is the benefit other than some scheme of commerce? Sure, it looks like there was a benefit, I reduced my carbon footprint but so what, through a manipulation of design, the next guy negated that benefit
In practice that isn't how it works, as evidenced by the previous pollution controls that have worked this way very successfully. See DCforever's previous post.
What really happens is that Company A takes the measures necessary to reduce the carbon pollution, and the sale of their tax credits pays the cost of those measures plus a bit more, so their net costs are reduced, and they become more profitable/competitive..
Company B avoids taking the necessary pollution control measures... perhaps they just don't want to increase their investment, perhaps the plant is nearing retirement... by buying tax credits to offset their penalties, thereby becoming less profitable/competitive. They don't increase their pollution, they just avoid having to deal with it.
Overall pollution decreases, without any government funds needed as an incentive.
The problem is you spout off with no knowledge about the subject. Read a little bit and you'll embarass yourself less. Cap and Trade | US EPA
Wet sulfate deposition decreased 43 percent in the Northeast and 44 percent in the Midwest under the ARP. Wet nitrogen deposition also decreased in the Northeast by 27 percent and in the Midwest by 16 percent. These reductions in sulfur and nitrogen deposition have resulted in positive changes in environmental indicators, including improved water quality in lakes and streams.
The program has reduced SO2 emissions faster and at far lower costs than anticipated, yielding wide-ranging health and environmental improvements. A 2003 Office of Management and Budget study (PDF) (234 pp, 2.4M, About PDF) found that the ARP accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits—over $70 billion annually—of any federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with annual benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1―for every dollar spent on implementing this cap and trade program, 40 dollars are returned in health and environmental benefits. A 2005 study (PDF) (15 pp, 532K, About PDF) estimated the program’s benefits at $122 billion annually in 2010, while cost estimates are around $3 billion annually (in 2000 dollars).
You talking oranges compared to apples. We weren't talking about the Acid Rain Program, but the newer Carbon Credit scheme which started in 2007, 4 years AFTER that 2003 report you talk about.
You still haven't provided a direct comparison between the carbon credit and other programs. If a program is credited with a result and no other direct comparison to a competing system is cited, the benefit attributed is made up if it is lined to the program.
A scheme usually has some benefit somewhere otherwise no one would engage in them. You don't mention what the benefits of another program would be because?
If you want to make valid comparison, go ahead, otherwise your spouting off.
You talking oranges compared to apples. We weren't talking about the Acid Rain Program, but the newer Carbon Credit scheme which started in 2007, 4 years AFTER that 2003 report you talk about.
You still haven't provided a direct comparison between the carbon credit and other programs. If a program is credited with a result and no other direct comparison to a competing system is cited, the benefit attributed is made up if it is lined to the program.
A scheme usually has some benefit somewhere otherwise no one would engage in them. You don't mention what the benefits of another program would be because?
If you want to make valid comparison, go ahead, otherwise your spouting off.
There is zero reason to believe a carbon trading program wouldn't perform as well as the SOx and NOx program. Many of the participants will be the same firms.
The CO2 credit trading program would work the same way.
No it wouldn't becsue those reductions in emissions are not as simple as say switching to lower sulfur coal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
