From a Theory to a Consensus on Emissions

From a Theory to a Consensus on Emissions

www.nytimes.com

As Congress weighs a mandatory limit on GHGs it is likely to turn to a system that sets a ceiling on CO2 and allows industries to buy and sell permits. Cap and trade is embraced by Obama, Democrats, environmentalists and a number of businesses. Many supporters dismissed the idea as a scheme to avoid the real costs of air pollution. The answer was regulation, technology and a tax on CO2.
How did cap and trade become policy of choice? The answer is where most policy debates are settled: politics

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.climateark.org
esciencenews.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NYT: Cap and Trade is “Politics,” Scheme Creators Say Does Not Apply to CO2!
Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet
“Carbon Benefits Project”: Land management lowers CO2, may open carbon markets to poor

The creators of cap and trade argued that it shouldn't apply to global problems such as CO2 mitigation.

Originally suited and applied to regional remediation of sulfur dioxide pollution and "acid rain," cap and trade was not intended to apply in other areas.

The current debate reflect a political response, with concessions given to industries and Congressional districts, and no consideration of the true impact on costs and consumers.

jw

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Good thread as always, jdub297, S&F

I think the cap and trade system is being put in place to allow the government to throttle the productivity of one company in favor of another (probably the one that contributed to a particular politicians campaign or traded some other sort of favor for it.) It's just another example of how the Democrats are implementing their version of "The Good Ol' Boy Network."


TA

[edit on 17-5-2009 by TheAssociate]

Originally posted by TheAssociate
I think the cap and trade system is being put in place to allow the government to throttle the productivity of one company in favor of another (probably the one that contributed to a particular politicians campaign or traded some other sort of favor for it.)

The majority in the House have already agreed on aplan that give free credits to the industries and constituencies that they need for support.

"Refiners get concessions"
www.statesman.com...

"Industry gives in - for a price"
www.startribune.com...

This appies globally, as the EU, UK and Australian schemes fall apart.

"Australian Gov't Announces Pro-Business Concessions"
www.wsws.org...

"Coal, Electricity Big Winners in Deal"
washingtonindependent.com...

It's all just a game, and we get to pay the ante, raises and 'pot' taken by Congress for redistribution.

jw