Don't believe me? It is no right winged news source, rather, this comes from a left winged environmentalists news source.
http://greenchange.live.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=5353
The whole arguement is based upon the premise that global warming is occuring and that the proposed legislation will do next to nothing to change that problem.
"At the international climate taks in Copenhagen, President Obama's expected to announce that the US wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to about 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050. But at the heart of the plan of cap and trade, is a market-based approach that has been widely praised that does little to slow global warming or reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It merely allows polluters and Wall Street traders to fleece the public out of billions of dollars.
Supporters of cap and trade, point to the 1990 clean air act amendments that capped sulfer dioxide nitrogen oxide emissions from coal burning power plants -- the main pollutants in acid rain -- at levels below what they were in 1980. The legislation allowed power plants that reduced emissions to levels below the cap to sell the credit for these excess reductions to other utilities whose emissions were too high, thus giving plant owners a financial incentive to cut back their pollution. Sulfer emissions have been reduced by 43% in the two decades since. Great success? Hardly.
Because cap and trade is enforced through the selling and trading of permits, it actually perpetuates the pollution it is suppose to eliminate. If every pollutor's emissions fall below the incrementally lowered cap, then the price of pollution credits would collapse and the economic rationale to keep reducing pollution would dissapear.
Worse, yet, polluters' lobbyists ensured that the the clean air amendments allowed existing power plants to be grandfathered, avoiding many pollution regulations. These old plants would soon be retired anyway, the utilities claimed. That's hardly been the case. Two thirds of today's coal fired power plants were constructed before 1975.
Cap and trade also did little to improve public health. Coal emmisions are still significant contributing factors in the four of the five leading causes of mortalitiy in the US -- and mercury, arsenic, and various other pollutants also cause birth defects, asthma, and other ailments.
Yet cap and trade schemes are still being pursued in Copenhagen and Washington. To compound matters, the Congressional carbon cap would also encourage "offsets" -- alternatives to emission reductions, like planting trees or degraded land or avoiding deforestation in Brazil. Caps would be raised by the offset amount,even if such offsets are imaginary or unverifiable. Stopping deforestation in one area does not reduce demand for lumber, deforestation simply moves elsewhere.
Once again, lobbyists are providing the real leadership on climate change legislation. Under the proposed law, some permits to pollute would be handed out free, and much of the money actually collected from permits would be used to pay for boondoggies like "clean coal" research. The House and Senate energy bills would only assure continued coal use, making it implausiblel that carbon dioxide emissions would decline sharply.
If that is not bad enough, Wall Street is poised to make billions of dollars in the "trade" part of cap and trade. The market for trading permits to emit carbon appears likely to be loosely regulated, to be open to speculators and to include derivatives. Allthe profits of this pollution trading system would be extracted from the public via increased energy costs."
There is an alternative, one that would be more efficient and less costly than cap and trade called "fee and dividend". Under this approach, a gradually rising carbon tax fee would be collected at the mine or port of entry, for each fossil fuel, coal oil, and gas. The fee would be uniform, a certain number of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in the fuel. The public would not be directy pay any fee, but the price of goods would rise in proportion to how much carbon emitting fuel is used in their production.
All of these collected fees would then be distributed to the public. Prudent people would use their dividend wisely, adjusting their lifestyle, choice of vehicles and so on. Those who do better than average in choosing less polluting goods would receive more in the dividend than they pay in added costs"
You can read the rest if you so desire, but this is the bulk of the article. So what do you think, are you ready for yet another good old fashion fleecing from Washington and Wall Street!!
Originally posted by whodeyso do you support the more efficient and less costly "fee and dividend" alternative that is proposed at the end of the article?
Don't believe me? It is no right winged news source, rather, this comes from a left winged environmentalists news source.
http://greenchange.live.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=5353
The whole arguement is based upon the premise that global warming is occuring and that the proposed legislation will do next to nothing to change that problem.
...[text shortened]... ady for yet another good old fashion fleecing from Washington and Wall Street!!
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt is much better than what is being offered in Copenhagen. I mean, if you are really concerned about global warming, then make the necessary changes. In addition, money can go directly back to the consumer, something government and Wall Street have no time for.
so do you support the more efficient and less costly "fee and dividend" alternative that is proposed at the end of the article?
Of course, I'm not 100% convinced about all the hype of global warming, but if I were, I would want the plan the article states than the one being offered. In addition, I would want to go nuclear. I just find it odd none of them are pushing to go nuclear.
Originally posted by whodeyFor whatever reason, the Democrats have all settled on cap and trade as being The Plan to Save the World. The debate seems to have come down to being either Cap and Trade or Bupkis with the Dems on one side and the GOP on the other.
It is much better than what is being offered in Copenhagen. I mean, if you are really concerned about global warming, then make the necessary changes. In addition, money can go directly back to the consumer, something government and Wall Street have no time for.
Of course, I'm not 100% convinced about all the hype of global warming, but if I were, I woul ...[text shortened]... dition, I would want to go nuclear. I just find it odd none of them are pushing to go nuclear.
What if a significant group of GOP backed this fee and dividend approach? They could probably get some of the Dems to go along with it. Maybe another group of Dems and-or GOPs could come up with yet another idea. We could have a whole bunch of different things in the mix and we could have a long discussion about what would work the best while harming the economy the least.
As for nuclear power. It's become one of those things that the left decided to demonize after Three Mile Island and no one's made any real attempt to un-demonize ever since. I don't even hear the GOP talking much about it. Someone needs to put forth a convincing case for why nuclear power makes a lot of sense, and at least get a debate going on the issue.
Come on GOP. End the chronic hissy fit and get involved in finding solutions.
Originally posted by MelanerpesNo truer words have been said. Democrats have decided. End of debate.
[b]For whatever reason, the Democrats have all settled on cap and trade as being The Plan to Save the World.
As for nuclear power. It's become one of those things that the left decided to demonize after Three Mile Island and no one's made any real attempt to un-demonize ever since.
Is 2010 here yet?
Originally posted by whodeywell right now the options are
No truer words have been said. Democrats have decided. End of debate.
Is 2010 here yet?
Democrats: cap & trade
Republicans: (crickets chirping)(Glenn Beck crying)
we have one year for either party to propose something better in time for 2010. Or for Americans to realize that voting independent is the only way to NOT waste their vote.
Originally posted by MelanerpesA carbon tax is another option. In essence it does the same thing as cap and trade but in reverse. In cap and trade the quantity of pollution is set and the market decides the price. With a carbon tax the price is targeted and the market determines the resulting quantity of pollution.
well right now the options are
Democrats: cap & trade
Republicans: (crickets chirping)(Glenn Beck crying)
we have one year for either party to propose something better in time for 2010. Or for Americans to realize that voting independent is the only way to NOT waste their vote.
I'll have to read about this dividend thing. I'm a little suspicious at the onset though given the source's agenda.
Originally posted by MelanerpesI think the jury is definitely still out on this fee and dividend thing.
so do you support the more efficient and less costly "fee and dividend" alternative that is proposed at the end of the article?
Actually, it looks just like a carbon tax with targeted transfers on the other end. Could work, but I don't see why c&t couldn't also achieve the same result. I found the article's arguments fell far short of convincing.
The reasoning in the OP's article is fundamentally flawed. The only way in which the industry as a whole would want to keep pollution up in a cap and trade system if is the regulating body would insert money in the system that one might pull out with a cartel. But this is not the case AFAIK, so there is no incentive for any utility to keep up emissions.
Now I oppose cap and trade, but tell me whodey, if you hate it so much, why do you find it so difficult to find a reasonable reason to oppose it?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI have a myriad of reasons to oppose it. First of all, I am not sold on the notion that global warming is the man-made problem it is proported to be. Secondly, I am not sold on the notion that the powers that be believe it either. After all, they opose nuclear power, which is a carbon free source of power that is vital to the cause. And lastly, if all the planets aligned properly and they were 100% right about the man-made effects of global warming and that nuclear power was either worse or just as bad as man-made carbon emiision, the legistlation is full of holes. Most of the industry that produces these emissions would find ways around it as more jobs would flock to third world countries. In addition, it is not finding alternatives, rather, it is simply a blind taxation with the hopes that increased costs will force us to find alternatives. My only hope is that with such massive taxes on the horizen, including health care, that it will force the populace to find alternatives to government, thus, handing them all pink slips. I find the indifference to such taxation monsterous in the wake of a such financial turmoil. People are losing homes and jobs and all they can do is sit around and find other ways to punish people. Disgusting.
Now I oppose cap and trade, but tell me whodey, if you hate it so much, why do you find it so difficult to find a reasonable reason to oppose it?[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyWell, there is a relation between taxes and jobs - higher taxes generally mean more jobs.
I have a myriad of reasons to oppose it. First of all, I am not sold on the notion that global warming is the man-made problem it is proported to be. Secondly, I am not sold on the notion that the powers that be believe it either. After all, they opose nuclear power, which is a carbon free source of power that is vital to the cause. And lastly, if all the ...[text shortened]... es and jobs and all they can do is sit around and find other ways to punish people. Disgusting.
Apart from that, nuclear power really has nothing to do with cap and trade.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell then, why not just take 100% of our income so that we can get 100 more jobs? Makes sense to me.
Well, there is a relation between taxes and jobs - higher taxes generally mean more jobs.
Apart from that, nuclear power really has nothing to do with cap and trade.
As for nuclear power, it is an energy source that can replace the need for coal, which is the dirtest carbon emitter, so yes, it has everything to do with carbon emissions and cap and trade, or at least should. So I guess you can continue to back the powers that be who only talk about "clean coal". When I find some, I'll let ya know.
Originally posted by whodeyYou're barking up the wrong tree. I'm for nuclear power and against cap and trade.
Well then, why not just take 100% of our income so that we can get 100 more jobs? Makes sense to me.
As for nuclear power, it is an energy source that can replace the need for coal, which is the dirtest carbon emitter, so yes, it has everything to do with carbon emissions and cap and trade, or at least should. So I guess you can continue to back the powers that be who only talk about "clean coal". When I find some, I'll let ya know.
Of course there is an optimum in the amount of taxation. I can assure you the US is below the optimum.