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.
Please put aside the Global Warming arguments for this thread.
I'd like to hear a discussion of 'Cap and Trade', which has been proposed by some Presidential candidates as a central part of their Energy policy. The European Union has the 'European Union Emission Trading Scheme', for an example of a cap and trade system.
Quote:
Emissions trading (or cap and trade) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emissions must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.
I'm far from a bleeding-heart environmentalist, but this seems to be all about money. I would like to know who is getting rich on this. If you are supposed to be serious about emissions reductions, forget all this trading BS. Just reduce you emissions.
This kind of thing seems to strengthen my contention that things like global warming are more about economic and political agendas than environmental agendas.
Cap and trade is a way to reduce emissions while minimizing the overall economic impact. Some industries cannot directly reduce their emissions as much as other industries, and this is a way for them to still stay in business yet pay for their pollution.
Cap and trade is a way to reduce emissions while minimizing the overall economic impact. Some industries cannot directly reduce their emissions as much as other industries, and this is a way for them to still stay in business yet pay for their pollution.
I fail to see how this benefits anyone.
"yet pay for their pollution..." WTF?
To whom are they paying, what are the monies being used for and how does "paying" pertain to pollution?
This is another bizarre liberal idea that is meant to punish business, create more big-nanny "central authority" etc.
The right side of their mouths, they snivel and whine about jobs, wages, etc.
The left side of ther mouths, they promote ideas that directly serve to adversely impact the very businesses that provide those jobs and wages in the first place.
The answer to pollution is science. Period.
Not caving in to the child-like notions of a bunch of delusional leftist moonbats who believe that taxing those who succeed will help soothe the pain of their own irrelevant, failed lives.
The insane liberals are at it again, attempting to force us to use only one roll of toilet paper per month and pretendin that big ol "Al Gore" is the man of the science, a science genius, wheen he is in fact a stupid. He ma even be even a bigger stupid then that socialist commie woman Hillery Clinton, if she cant control her husband then hows she gonna guide the nukes to Iran, huh? Nobody wants to vote for them Democrats. They'll hurt those who do better and help those who do worse, when they do that they attack the way God Meant It To Be and them liberals should be ashamed.
And now their tellin the happy factories that they shouldn't put their clouds in the air. Ha! The factories with their successful, smart owners are more than capable and always will put out far less "global warming" from their harmless factory in a decade than Fat Albert Gore put out from his mouth in ONE MINUTE, Sean Hannity tells me so, so its true. He bucks the trends and gets the real truth that the mainstream Drive By Media Refuses to print for fear of being punished by their master, the notorious George Soros. But it's okay, cause one day the rapture comes and then the dumb liberals see that we didn have to "save the world" after all, since it's only temporary while we are eternal.
LM1 and I are kindred spirits fighting off the vile leftist commie hordes who desire us to give our hard-earned resources to the "Masters," the evil UN that is controlled by the Freemasons and the Illuminati, so that they can redistribute them to the undeserving and useless "owls" and "pandas" and "homeless" how they see fit. These people are insane and must be DEFEATED, this means war. Our great leader has already been chosen:
I fail to see how this benefits anyone.
"yet pay for their pollution..." WTF?
The answer to pollution is science. Period.
Not caving in to the child-like notions of a bunch of delusional leftist moonbats who believe that taxing those who succeed will help soothe the pain of their own irrelevant, failed lives.
How are you going to force people to reduce pollution despite science? Companies look at the bottom line, and the "scientific" solution isn't always the one that sounds good to accountants- rarely do they factor in the environmental costs in their ledgers. A cap-and-trade system is one way to get companies to internalize environmental costs, and at the same time provide some leeway for companies that cannot meet emmissions targets, giving them an alternative to going out of business. They can essentially buy pollution rights from another company, one that has exceeded its reduction goals as set by the government.
Magnulus - thanks for contributing. I agree with you that companies transfer (sometimes) their environmental costs to the public - I think that is an unfair business practice. I don't like the idea of requiring some average guy making $20 / hour to pay for cleaning up some corporate (or Government) waste dump.
What about the 'European Union Emission Trading Scheme'? IIRC the Europeans who signed Kyoto aren't meeting their emissions targets and the emissions trading program has spawned some dubious investments. Will their experience help the USA craft a better program? Or should the USA look to their experience as a warning that it is a failed policy?
Please put aside the Global Warming arguments for this thread.
I'd like to hear a discussion of 'Cap and Trade', which has been proposed by some Presidential candidates as a central part of their Energy policy. The European Union has the 'European Union Emission Trading Scheme', for an example of a cap and trade system.
sounds like another version of the Kyoto treaty. Not gonna fall for it. Europe has not met its goals under the Kyoto treaty.
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.
