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.
If Cap and Trade would result in America developing a nuclear electrical system based on full fuel recovery and recycle I support it. I would also support treating CO2 as a pollutant and charging for the emissions. I do not support another phony "market" where real values can be manipulated for the benefit of the speculators and traders.
Burning sequestered carbon and releasing it for free into the world’s atmosphere is an example of a positive externality for the business. It completely disregards the potential problems created by the rapid increase in this gas in the atmosphere. I believe this externality should be eliminated on a world wide basis. Unfortunately for some, regulating pollution on a world wide basis would require a world wide regulator with the power to fine or close any violated of the pollution limits. That regulator is a world wide government and is anathema to many.
Having the world become a lot warmer and less agriculturally productive as well as the loss of much of the sea side development is anathema and possible fatal to many more. How this plays out will be interesting to watch. Who will win, the speculators and the owners of the fossil fueled economy or the folks that might starve because of crop failure and rising sea level. I am betting both will happen. We will continue to burn coal at an ever increasing rate and the globe will get warmer and the sea levels higher. The only thing I am certain of is the original polluters will not pay for the damages.
If Cap and Trade would result in America developing a nuclear electrical system based on full fuel recovery and recycle I support it.
Highly unlikely at least on any big scale, nuclear at this point isn't included in the renewable mandates. The power companies will be investing in whatever is needed to meet the mandates.
I support the efforts that cap & trade is aimed at. However, it's the language in the measure that I oppose.
IMO, allowing companies to emit pollutants beyond their cap by way of purchasing credits from companies that have not gone beyond their quota, doesn't really address the problem.
For those that believe global warming is a fairytale, if you actually looked at the data and the science behind it, you'd understand that it is indeed a real problem.
I've read a lot about it because it's a subject I find fascinating. There are some scientific theories that suggest that it really isn't "global" warming per se, but rather "spot" warming. There's some evidence to support this, and I find myself in agreement with this data as well.
Well, actually it helps. A lot. The creative companies who find ways to reduce their emissions get rewarded for that. The others have to pay for it. It is all about incentives. Done right, it should work well.
What I am worried is all kind of "exceptions" that may go with it down the road.
The creative companies who find ways to reduce their emissions get rewarded for that.
This is how it works now. Higher energy efficiency equals profits, companies don't need an incentive to lower emissions. Cap and trade perverts the market by making other more expensive sources of energy competitive.
This is how it works now. Higher energy efficiency equals profits, companies don't need an incentive to lower emissions. Cap and trade perverts the market by making other more expensive sources of energy competitive.
You are missing out two important points here: 1) Externality issue. Just because a source of energy has a lower market price does not mean its true cost is lower. 2) New technologies have a Learning curve where costs go down in time as you produce more.
2) New technologies have a Learning curve where costs go down in time as you produce more.
This is particularly true when there is an incentive to make them less, by artificially making them competitive that incentive is now gone. In fact you are now putting the ball back into the court of the fossil fuel industry, short term that may make sense but ultimately hinders the long term goal of truly competitive renewable energy.
Actually it's the reverse of punishment. Pollution is what economists call an externality. It's a cost or benefit that accrues to society as a whole from the actions of individuals.
CO2 is like any other pollutant. We decided long ago that you can't just flush your sewage into the stream upriver of my house. We've done the same with air. You can't just pollute the air around you harming those down wind. CO2 regulation is using the same law that cleaned up other air pollutants -- NOx, SOx, Lead, mercury, etc.
CO2 is not a pollutant ... your ignorant rear end exhales CO2!!! Furthermore, plant life needs CO2 just as we humans need the oxygen plants produce.
The most prosperous times in the past .. with the most abundant production of plant life coincided with levels of C02 many times greater than today.
There is simply NO EXCUSE TO REMAIN SO IGNORANT about this basic, fundamental fact ... Life would not exist on this planet without CO2 .. therefore it is not a pollutant !!!!
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.
