You are selling them a tax stamp, not a factory. Your analogy doesn't work. I don't know why you keep using the word fee. There is no service provided. It just does not fit. The purpose is not to "clean up" a river, it is to raise the cost of carbon emission to the point where it is cheaper to reduce emissions.
Very helpful site on the details of this bill: http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/ACES/index.html And in response to Sarah Palin's op-ed, which is basically what's been said in this thread: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c...-palin-does-not-understand-cap-and-trade.html
Sullivan's argument, and yours, fails because CO2 is not a pollutant. SO2, NOx, and mercury are, and are already being dealt with at power plants. What's the next argument supporting this disastrous bill that can be this easily dismissed? NEXT
We all lose when we are more concerned with whether or not CnT is a tax than we are with whether or not it effectively reduces CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, SamFisher couldn't resist the troll bait.
He started the thread and that is what it was about. Seriously WTF are you even talking about. Who trolled the thread besides you?
It is in large quantities -- and that's kind of where the debate ends on this. Some people believe global warming is real, others believe it is a hoax. If you're of the former opinion, hopefully you can take some solace in the fact that despite what Rush Limbaugh will tell you, the world won't come crashing down because of this bill:
I gather that C&T is supposed to disuad energy suppliers from using fossil fuels, by making it more expensive via the fees. The energy suppliers would be more inclined to develop alternative energy. So, what happens when the energy suppliers simply raise the prices of the same 'ole fossil fuel supplied energy, passing it on to the consumer? The good 'ole govt will simply blame the irresponsible and criminal power suppliers and their "record profits", and try to take them over......or at least snicker, sit back, and take in the revenue. Bogus.
Well, it should be noted that the companies can't just pass on the entire cost to consumers in the absence of a criminal price-fixing conspiracy. The cost of the policy will be comprised of a combination of price increases for consumers and lower profits for suppliers, with the idea that the benefits of decreased emissions will outweigh the portion of the cost that is paid by consumers.
The plan, to squeeze the coal industry and force them to go alternative. I'd be for nuclear, but I don't think Obama is on board with that. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SMwBbl6RoIs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SMwBbl6RoIs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
