cap-and-trade system? (emissions trading)?

The biggest disadvantage is that unless we monitor the air quality coming into the United States, cap and trade will not work. The air that we are getting coming in off of the Pacific is continuing to get dirtier by the year. Why else do you think that the most restrictive State for emissions still can't me EPA regulations? It is just another form of tax on the people that will cause even more jobs to go overseas.

As I've said before and the author of the article does as well. It doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not. The US isn going to need more and more energy. And oil isn't the way. Now we could have spent $800 billion on nuclear power plants. If as you say 8 billion a pop. That's still 100 plants. At a Gigawatt a piece. That's a considerable amount of power. And expanding the power grid. We could have covered that out of TARP. We'd have a return on our investment for a long time. "Obviously" you don't think you are paying enough for the energy you use today. Fine. Double or triple what your energy costs are today and send that to Al Gore or whoever. But please don't expect me to do the same. And don't have government put a gun to my head and take if from me. That my friend is exactly what cap and trade will do. Hold a gun to my head and ROB me! I've told you elsewhere when there's a cheaper source of power I'll use it gladly. There was a time when I drove a 7 liter car with a 25 gallon gas tank. If I put my foot in it the speedometer and gas gauge had a race which one could hit the limit first. But gas was 32 cents a gallon then too. Will cap and trade make our energy cheaper? The Democrats will tell you today (if they are honest) the same thing Obama said in the past. NO it will make it more expensive. But that was before he became President. You can find that on YouTube. What will Cap and Trade do to carbon emissions. Can you say 'nothing' boys and girls? Why Because what someone doesn't use someone else will. Even the bill in Congress already had loopholes for 'certain' industries and companies. The only people that will make out is the government. And as the last twenty year has proved beyond a doubt the US Government is a BLACK HOLE when it comes to money. How long before something changes? Cap and trade will be a jobs killer not a jobs generator. I don't have access to the computer they are on or I'd post links to several economists who think like I do. Or should I say after I read their articles I agree with their opinions and analysis. I have nothing against R&D. But we need something proven we can use NOW!

Kyoto agreement has cap and trade and what are the results of that agreement? No real effect or reduction by any country.

The problem with cap and trade is you provide a business an out for not upgrading their facilities or you make it so they do not have the capital to make the changes.

If the trade prices are low, then their is no incentive to change. If trade prices are too high, then companies do not have the financial resources to make the changes.

A better solution is to identify industries were technology already exists and those industries that contribute the high amounts of emissions.

Provide those industries with government loans or government backed loans to upgrade their facilities.

Once completed move onto the next industry.

Cap and trade will have no effect except to make some individuals wealthy

Policy that affects everyone should be built upon a solid evidence base developed through scientific research and rational analysis, not market variables (which are notoriously subject to manipulation).

Faulty science, failures in accounting, and destructive impacts of construction, manufacturing, and other projects on environments and local residents are problems with trading pollution allowances.

Many critics think cap and trade is not a credible, effective mechanism for doing what it purports to do - reduce climate disruption. It's a market invention, and that may be an inappropriate mechanism for addressing a very real and pervasive problem.

Overall reductions must come through a mechanism that actually reduces overall allowances in the system, but cap and trade (seems like marketplace hocus pocus) because 'entities' that do not pollute sell their conservation benefits to the highest bidder.

One serious problem with the current proposal is that, instead of a general auction of the right to pollute, polluters are doled out their own rights to pollute and are able to buy more 'pollution credits' from those who don't pollute. Had there been a general auction, the revenue generated could have been invested in green power and clean tech (if there is such a thing - actually it's cleaner tech and greener power, bvut perhaps nothing is THAT clean or green).

Barack Obama was NOT the environmental candidate, but though he was a conventional (and uncritical) 'cap and trade' candidate (itself a problem), he was much closer to a positive hope for addressing climate disruption than anyone else realistically running after the initial sorting process had been completed.

When Republicans are AMONG the critics of cap and trade, they join critics dotted throughout the political and ideological spectrum.

Policy that affects everyone should be built upon a solid evidence base developed through scientific research and rational analysis, not market variables (which are notoriously subject to manipulation). Perhaps cap and trade is not that.

Here are similar criticisms of the Australian scheme.

Advantage: It creates a minimal amount of revenue for the government (like a tax), which we need because the deficit is so big and we to start paying back our debt.

Advantage: it forces business to be more environmentally friendly.

Advantage: it provides incentives for companies to develop alternative energy technology which in the future are supposed to help America remain energy independent.

Disadvantage: it makes the consumer (that's you and me, buddy) pay a lot more for energy, and because every business needs energy it will make the prices of pretty much everything go up.

Disadvantage: it hurts the competitiveness of US businesses and so will move businesses and jobs overseas to other countries who will outcompete us in the global market.

***end objective analysis, begin subjective***

All things considered I think cap and trade is a bad idea. The revenue for the government is just like a raise in tax, there's no need for cap and trade, global warming is just a fad and is probably a hoax and even if it isn't there's probably not much we can do about it--cap and trade won't do much, and as for alternative energy incentives the free market can take care of that, and the bad thing about cap and trade is that it hurts the coal industry A LOT, and we have SOOO much coal in America, like 200 years worth of power just in coal. If we wanted to be energy independent we don't need alternative energy, we could just use coal and electricity, so cap and trade really doesn't help there either.

If you can find an honest scientist with ' no gog in the hunt' to say CO2 is a problem then cap and trade is only the wrong way to go about saving the world. Emissions will not reduce they will just move to Mexico

It never worked in Europe and it will more than likely bankrupt many companies here and it was just another lie by Obama to gain taxes indirectly.

Contrary to Mr Obama’s election promise that 100 per cent of carbon trading permits would be auctioned off in the carbon market, the bill gives away 85 per cent of the allowances to different parts of the energy sector.

Source(s):

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d12b5516-4f95-...

85% of the revenues were given away by Waxman to get votes for the bill... only 15% of the "shares" will actually be traded...

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displa...

EDIT - European CnT has been a multibillion dollar boon for lobbyists. Australia is backing off from their program...

I can't think of any advantages. On the down side we'll have higher costs, jobs being driven overseas, etc.

I asked one of my climate science colleagues about this bill after it passed the house. Here's his reply:

Spending money we don't have,

for technology that won't work,

on problems that don't exist.

Yes, it is 100% capitalist to create a market then sell it to the people. Then we can control the price just like a thermostat and control global warming for 100,000s of years.