Good question. Here's the answer. The fastest way to cure high prices is.... high prices. The profit incentive will do more to stimulate spending on alternative energy than will government intervention into the process. A huge number of renewable energy projects and alternative energy projects were scrapped in the past year, despite this legislative surge to promote them. Why? Because energy prices plummeted. Again, there is no better way to solve this problem than allowing the free market to work its magic. Want to reduce CO2 emissions? Setting aside the issue that CO2 is not a pollutant and does not cause global warming (or global cooling, which is now taking place)... Create enough economic prosperity to fund these types of luxury issues. Raising energy taxes on consumers during a recession will work against your ultimate goal. You can take that to the bank. Why raise the price of energy up to the stunningly uneconomic levels of wind/solar? Why not work on lowering the cost of wind/solar instead? That would make much more sense...particularly when you consider how small those two sources of generation are in our overall portfolio...
Are you in favor of a system that allocates costs to producers or consumers in proportion to their accountability for such costs? Or are you in favor of one that randomly allocates them upon third parties and largely forces public entities to foot the costs for private parties?
Sam, your very thinly researched position has been cracked by my facts. Your pollution angle was discredited by the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant. Your global warming/sea level rising argument was discredited by the minimal impact CO2 has on global temperatures and the global cooling that has taken place since 2001. Those arguments have been defeated and abandoned, so you have now taken to asking questions as your form of defense. I'm wondering Sam, how you quantify these 'costs' that the 2% of greenhouse gases (CO2) impose on society. Can you share with us this cost information? How does this cost relate to the $3,000/family/year cost that Cap and Tax will impose on American families during this recession? Thank you.
It doesn't matter whether or not it is formally a pollutant - though according to the EPA - is in the process of being declared such: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19epa.html?ref=politics) The problem is that it's a negative externality. Now answer my question - would an economic system be better designed if it made the producers and consumers responsible for this externality bear this cost? Or would it be better if the costs of the externality were randomly allocated to third parties/public entities? Please answer the question.
I disagree that CO2 emissions create a negative externality, which is really the basis of your argument. Please help me out with what information you are using to draw this conclusion. We do know that despite rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 10 years, no global warming has occurred since 2001. Where is the externality?
Your claim has been refuted by sources you yourself have cited. It's obvious, however, that you're not here to debate or at least debate rationally, so don't bother asking me for a link. Suffice it to say that if all the evidence you choose to deliberately ignore were stacked against you, the list would run to about, say 4 or 5 pages, and that's being conservative. Of course, arguing with you about this issue (or many other issues) is like arguing with a brick wall that can run, so I'm not gonna waste any further time.
I also think cap and trade is a bad idea...but for completely different reasons. While you are politicizing this into an anti-Obama theme... the bottom line is that Cap n' Trade will do NOTHING. That's why I am against it. It's a means to appease environmentalists and people that soemthing is being done about global warming when in reality it has no impact. I don't think it will raise energy costs significantly because alternative energy is already coming out which will make this thing useless. Cap n' Trade won't reduce global warming, it won't affect energy bills, and it won't impact the economy. It's just a junk bill.
Once you begin to auction off instead of give away the carbon credits it becomes a tax. The higher % you sell vs. give away makes it more of a tax system. The last news I saw said it would be a 100% auction system.
No my claim has not been refuted by anything. And sure, you have 4-5 pages of evidence, but can't cite a single one. Riiight -- highly credible. Sweet Lou -- you are exactly right on there being no benefits whatsoever to this climate bill. Man's contribution to CO2 emissions are miniscule, and those in the US are a further subset of that. We simply can't control the sun, the oceans, or the other countries, which is why it's pure folly to think that temperatures will go down as a result of this bill. There will be no environmental impact, other than shifting emissions to countries with no controls. That's would make the environment worse off if you think CO2 is a pollutant.
It will do something because it has a hard cap on carbon emissions. Why do you think it will not do anything? And alternative energy is not already coming out. I don't understand what you even mean by that, unless you are talking about nuclear. I would fully support the cap and trade/tax if it used the tax revenue to fund research or funded the building of nukes. Don't let the money just go into the huge black hole of waste.
Several states already have a similar system. in those states, the utilities have been using other sources of energy to generate electricity.
ding ding ding. Nevertheless, for the masochists in the audience, or for those sincerely new to the whole debate, the following is one of the better threads from D&D past, including links to a lot of articles from both sides of the argument. one of hundreds of GW threads from CF
because it would be political suicide to actually create an enforceable bill or anything that would cost the utilities money. not even dems will push that through. alternative energy industry is growing. investment is being made. exxon just announced $600 million investment into freakin algae. why do we need this cap and trade system? To cut C02 5%? what's that going to accomplish?
So you are saying it will not pass AND it does nothing? It will cut CO2 production. If you don't think that does anything that is fine but it will do SOMETHING. Also 600million is nothing for exxon. Alternative energy is a joke.
It will pass but be loaded with so many loopholes that it will lack any real bite. Fact is, if you limit C02 output you are going to actually limit exonomic growth. And it will do nothing... tell me, where is the study that shows that cap n trade will slow global warming?
I dunno use google. If you think lowering our output of CO2 will stop global warming you also believe C&T will. No one denies the first word, meaning it does CAP the production.
It sure is. When compared to total energy production it is still a joke. No matter how many GE commercials you see we are not even close to being on the brink of an energy revolution. Unless you are talking about nukes.
