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.
i'm curious, what's the difference between "capping" emmissions and "limiting" them?
cap and trade is just a tool where some companies could choose to use less than the cap, and sell that "banked emissions" to companies who want/need to use more than the cap. but in the end, the overall cap is not exceeded. then, as time goes on, the cap could be lowered.
disagreeing with it as policy is fine. saying it drives up the price of goods is fine (as it would, because you're adding a dollar figure to the cost of pollution which companies don't necessarily pay for currently). but to say it accomplishes nothing except hurting people, or to say it does "nothing" for the environment is just factually incorrect.
disagreeing with the policy - fine. but we're all paying for pollution in some way or another. it's just...how much pollution are we ok with, as a society.
anyways, back to the point i was making in the OP, to say that it wasn't working is hilarious. the reason why it wasn't working is because governor christie spent the funds on things other than improving energy efficiency in NJ.
whether you agree/disagree with cap and trade...why can't people simply admit that? it's funny how blind partisanship works.
Cap and trade is a massive government interference in private commerce, and will end up as a massive boondoggle. The companies that know how to game the system will succeed, while honest entrepreneurs will get screwed as per usual. And of course, the taxpayers will end up paying for it all. We always do.
Good decision by Christie. Now we've got to eliminate this nonsense at the federal level as well. This program must die. Along with many others.
I'll tell you what, he's got a better idea than his predecessors. If we had Corsine, we'd be in even deeper debt than we are now.
that is most likely true, but not sure how it's relevant to the criticism here. he's not as bad as corzine is not exactly praise. i thought we were getting a much bigger improvement over corzine. in reality, he's just wasting money in different ways.
Cap and trade is a massive government interference in private commerce, and will end up as a massive boondoggle. The companies that know how to game the system will succeed, while honest entrepreneurs will get screwed as per usual. And of course, the taxpayers will end up paying for it all. We always do.
Good decision by Christie. Now we've got to eliminate this nonsense at the federal level as well. This program must die. Along with many others.
you may very well be right about the point on entrepreneurs. but it really isn't "massive government interference". the bottom line is, there is a cost to creating products. one of those costs is the pollution and/or byproducts produced in the creation of products we all buy. in the past, our country allowed companies to do whatever they wanted with that pollution and byproduct, and no one was responsible for it. until it became a problem. maybe "cap and trade" isn't the appropriate solution, but it's a pretty simple way to allocate the costs, and yes, the consumer ultimately pays for these costs. but any way you cut it, Christie squandered money from a program and then claims that the program doesn't work. maybe he should have given the money back to the companies that paid it in an agreement that it would be used on energy efficient programs, rather than using it to plug holes in the budget, then maybe the companies could have used the money to hire workers, invest in infrastructure, etc.
I don't care where you stand on cap and trade. What Christie did here is wrong, and if you cannot see that, you're blinded by something.
I agree with pulling out, but I also agree with your statement that the fund shouldn't have been raided to plug the budget. Deperate times and all, but money specifically allocated and collected for a purpose should be used for that purpose alone.
I think the statement of "it's not working" is correct if you look at the fact that RGGI has had no impact on emissions, it's simply increased costs. At the same time though, he did support a ban on new coal plants and reiterated the states push for renewable energy. NJ is actually one of the leading states on renewables, especially solar energy.
My main opposition to cap and trade isn't the idea of reducing emissions on placing a cost on pollution. It's commodotizing pollution and allowing it to be traded like any other commodity. Carbon credits from RGGI were being heavily invested in by major firms like Goldman Sachs. I would think a simple tax with payments directly to the state is a far better system. IMO cap and trade is simply just another way for people to make money.
This is what uncontrolled environmental protection left the state. Who is paying the cost of cleanup? Not the companies who left or are now gone. I'm not ready to allow the state to return to the days of anything goes.
I agree with pulling out, but I also agree with your statement that the fund shouldn't have been raided to plug the budget. Deperate times and all, but money specifically allocated and collected for a purpose should be used for that purpose alone.
I think the statement of "it's not working" is correct if you look at the fact that RGGI has had no impact on emissions, it's simply increased costs. At the same time though, he did support a ban on new coal plants and reiterated the states push for renewable energy. NJ is actually one of the leading states on renewables, especially solar energy.
My main opposition to cap and trade isn't the idea of reducing emissions on placing a cost on pollution. It's commodotizing pollution and allowing it to be traded like any other commodity. Carbon credits from RGGI were being heavily invested in by major firms like Goldman Sachs. I would think a simple tax with payments directly to the state is a far better system. IMO cap and trade is simply just another way for people to make money.
yeah. that's all i'm saying. maybe pulling out of the program is the right thing to do. i'm not really into discussing that. i'm just sick of politicians doing things and claiming certain things along with it. the one nj environmental group gives him a C- on environmental policy, which, in all honesty, is not a terrible grade. NJ i think is second in the nation for solar energy implementation, largely due to the state subsidy that has been available.
i think your point of opposition is the most logical argument i've heard. i'm not saying i'm for it, or that it's the best option. i would have rathered Christie announce that he's removing from it because it doesn't work, and he's going to do xyz because xyz does work.
banning new coal plants in NJ is something that is politically very easy to do. no one wants to live near one.
i'm curious, what's the difference between "capping" emmissions and "limiting" them?
but to say it accomplishes nothing except hurting people, or to say it does "nothing" for the environment is just factually incorrect.
you focused on the wrong word. the problem word is "trade" not "cap." the "trade" is some insane money making scheme designed to build up government revenue and enrich people who know how to game the system. there is no need to do the "trade" if you just are interesting in "capping."
our environment is fine. i like the idea of slowly reducing emissions over a long period of time. we are in no big rush to save the world, regardless of what al gore and fraudulent scientists say. they are trying to force ridiculous (and corrupt) methods on solving a problem that isnt much of a problem.
it's a crazy thought isn't it? to me, it's the crux of the idea of "fiscal responsibility". we may all disagree on a lot of things government does. but in the end, whether i agree or disagree with something...i think the government has a responsibility to the people to use the funds appropriately. so when you collect $x from companies and those dollars were collected to fund project ABC....when you use $x to fund project QRS, you're not being fiscally responsible. it's simple. we may not always agree with policy, but then change the policy, don't squander the money. i hold all elected officials to that, and will criticize whomever doesn't follow this basic principle.
you focused on the wrong word. the problem word is "trade" not "cap." the "trade" is some insane money making scheme designed to build up government revenue and enrich people who know how to game the system. there is no need to do the "trade" if you just are interesting in "capping."
our environment is fine. i like the idea of slowly reducing emissions over a long period of time. we are in no big rush to save the world, regardless of what al gore and fraudulent scientists say. they are trying to force ridiculous (and corrupt) methods on solving a problem that isnt much of a problem.
i don't really care about al gore. and i'm not interested in discussing the extremely overwhelming scientific peer reviewed opinions out there.
but the "trade" part of the idea is to allow for innovation to continue, and accept that society will always pollute to some degree, and allow the companies that pollute less or come up with technology to pollute less because there is an incentive to do so.
that's fine if you disagree with it. then the governor should have spoke about what his solution was. not waste the money that companies have paid for a specific purpose, and then say that "it's not working". it's disingenious at best, and certainly unethical in my eyes.
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.
