Why "Cap and Tax" is false...

Cap and Trade isn't my idea of an ideal solution but I do think there is potentially a lot that could come out of it. Consider that Cap and Trade on sulphur emissions did lead to a real reduction of acid rain while keeping costs down by encouraging development of sulphur reducing technologies and practices.

 

Tax = When you pay the government for permission to conduct your own business.

Fee = When you pay the government for a service or for an asset of value that belongs to the People.

With this understanding, permission to pollute would be a fee, because you are impinging on society's health and well-being, which belongs to the People.

 

The government selling the permits creates a cap on the price of the permit. Buying them from companies that have excess will always be lower than the cost from the government.

 

If it does not change the cost of the permit, which it should not, the trading of the permits has no change. You are just letting people sell their tax stamp like I said before.

 

There is no cap on the price. How did you come to these conclusions. Why would a company buy extra permits? If they buy extra then sell at a lower price that is a loss on an asset.

 

The EPA already uses different means of regulation for pollutants. Quality standards, one-size-fits-all technology requirements, emissions permits, etc... Cap and Trade is the least cumbersome of all of these for private industry because it allows each manager to tailor the needs for their company. And the main weakness from the other standards was that what applied for one region or industry didn't fit too well for another.

By trading the credits, it gives a quantifiable price of carbon emissions that before were dumped into the environment at the expense of the public.



And by reducing all emissions in general, there could be side benefits to the local environment surrounding the polluters and for the industries themselves through finding better means of efficiency and cost reduction.

Furthermore, by starting a hard cap standard, it puts us on a path of carbon emission treaty compliance if Congress ever decides to enact one.

That isn't to say that there aren't weaknesses to CnT. It's just that there will always be weaknesses to environmental regulation where dumping into the commons is routine and innately factored in by consumers/producers.

If done right, every year (or whenever the rollover is) will have a reduction in available pollution credits.

 

Yeah that is just the cap of carbon. I don't see what that has to do with what he posted.

 

They would never enter the secondary market if the auctions are fair to everyone. The auctions set the price. The only senario you could come up with for needed more or less permits was plants closing or opening. That will not be enough to change the price of permits.

 

Also I don't care if they pass the cap and tax bill. I would prefer if they use the tax revenue for research, but either way it will just be more job security for me and possibly be able to afford an apple when I am 60.

 

charging you $90 bucks for a passport is a fee
charging you $20 bucks for every 100 miles you travel would be a tax

This is more like a tax then a fee.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges.

The way sulpher causes acid rain - that relationship is very well understood. Reducing sulpher emissions to x has a y result. Reducing the amount of sulpher emissions will directly lessen the impact of acid rain - which is a regional phenomenon.

But it's not the same for Co2 - which is not a pollutant as TJ pointed out. No more then Oxygen and Nitrogen are pollutants.

Global warming is not....I mean, just look at the name - it's not a regional phenomenon. Reducing Co2 emissions in the Midwest doesn't reduce global warming anywhere. If the U.S. cuts Co2 emissions 20% which would be a drastic cut - what will the impact be?

Nada. We could reduce Co2 emissions to Zero and you know what, global warming will continue on it's marry way.

This is because it is not the yearly man-made emissions that causes global warming, it's the cumulative effect over 100 years judo. 100 years! Since the industrial revolution.

CO2 has a half-life in the atmosphere of 10,000 years.


if people see global warming as a threat - then we have to plan for a zero emission carbon dioxide future, not a cap and trade system. Additionally, we have to reverse the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, by creating man-made carbon sinks. another possibility is to disrupt upper level winds which would cool the planet.

My point is that this cap n' trade business is a waste of time. I say, either we learn to live with global warming, and invest in technollogy that will help us cope with a warmer planet, or we decide to actually REVERSE the trend, and cap n' trade ain't going to do that.

 

I don't understand this argument that CO2 isn't a pollutant. If you are saying that CO2 is a natural compound so it isn't pollutant then wouldn't sulpher also not be a pollutant since it is also a natural element?

Whether something occurs naturally or not doesn't mean that the unnatural release of it in large quantities that have cause a negative impact environment isn't a pollutant. Water vapor and heat in certain circumstances are considered pollutants even though we know those occur naturally.

Of course I understand its a cumulative effect the question is then can we take steps to reverse that effect? While man made CO2 emmissions have been ongoing for a 100 years and are likely to continue it still makes sense to at least try to decrease the amount emmissions. Also as I have pointed out to you before since we don't fully understand the implications of reduction its still possible that there is a level we can reduce emmisions where the natural carbon soaks can absorb up carbon more efficiently.

I am curious what this is based on. CO2 is being taken out of the atmosphere all the time by plants, the ocean and other carbon soaks. The problem is that we are dumping it in so much faster than the current system can soak up.

You are making the perfect the enemy of the good. I agree there are faster ways of getting to a reducing carbon emmissions but they have drawbacks too. A cap and trade system isn't perfect but it will likely spur things like new technology and efficiencies to reduce emmissions.

 

I'm not quite sure I follow you since there is only a one time fee paid to the government while the other transactions are within the private sector.

To me this seems like I buy a car from a government auction and then sell it to someone else. While yes I pay a fee to the government that one time the person I sell it to isn't being taxed.

 

When are the auctions proposed, if there is a need for additional credits? If there aren't enough credits in the system? initially?

 

so the cap and trade legislation is a one-time fee companies pay to exceed their carbon cap? doesn't matter if the exceed it by one liter or 1 million?

if that's the case the cap will only be effective on companies that barely exceed the cap relative to the amount of the fee.

 

CO2 doesn't cause any direct damage to human, plant, or animal life. Nor does it combine with anything to form a toxic compound.

The greenhouse effect makes life on earth possible, and Co2 is a major contributor to that effect. It's a necessary component of the atmosphere and it;s level flucuate over the course of time. It's increasing right now, and that has result in an intensification of the greenhouse effect. That's not necessarily a bad thing unless your humanity which has built all of it's civilization in coastal areas.

A Cap n trade system will not make a dent in this phenomenon. But it has the potential to adversely affect jobs.

You say we should do it because it will help. Then tell me by how much? If you are going to cost people their jobs, you better be able to state the quantitative benefit.

There isn't a single study that shows reducing CO2 via a cap n trade system will be a net positive. There is no science behind that.

We know that excessive CO2 has led to a runaway greenhouse effect. The time to fight it was yesterday. Reports are now coming in that methane levels are spiking, which indicate the permafrost has begun to melt and release methane. We're in a positive feedback loop now. Less ice to reflect back sunlight, and now declining permafrost.

Excess atmospheric Co2 has a half life off about a 100 year technically I think, but 25% of it really is permanent. It doesn't decay logrithmically, it's not a true half-life. Point, the excess C02 in the atmosphere will be with us for generations upon generations....and this warming cycle will continue to the end of whatever it will before natural processes begin to reverse the cycle.

Mankind created this mess because there are too many people. It's as simple as that. There's jut way too many people.

This is the basic funadmental truth we have to face: This planet can not support 6 billion+ human beings and remain unchanged.

 

Not having enough in the system is the whole point.