cap-and-trade system? (emissions trading)?
what are the advantages and the disadvantages for cap-and-trade system in the states?
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.
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.
References :
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.
References :
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.
References :
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/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13702826
EDIT - European CnT has been a multibillion dollar boon for lobbyists. Australia is backing off from their program…
References :
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-...
References :
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
References :
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.
References :
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-12-public-understand-cap-trade/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Carbon_Trading_Scheme
it will produce some reduction in co2.
clearly it’s not perfect.
things like this take years of lots of small steps, but gradually we make progress.
consider polio
the vaccine has been available for more than 50 years.
but there are still places that have it.
in some places, people think that those "pale faces" are giving them, and their children, poison.
global warming will be far harder to address, because there is so much money to be made by not addressing the problem.
consider, in order to really address the problem, we’d have to completely stop burning coal and oil.
that’s a trillion $ industry.
there are more than enough gullible folks who can be convinced that we’re stealing their money and giving it to al gore, to slow the process.
you see them here every day.
however, now that the energy industry has moved out of the white house, we’ll see considerably more progress.
what cap-and-trade does is allow an industry that has not found any other way to do business that reduces it’s CO2 output, to continue it’s operation, if it can find someone else for whom there is a reasonable alternative, and put it’s money into reducing the CO2 that that industry produces.
over time, we can expect innovation to produce more and more alternative production methods so that industries for whom there is not an alternative today, will eventually have other options.
over time, the price of the options will increase, until it becomes more financially feasible for companies to find other methods to do business.
clearly it’s not perfect.
however, allowing global warming to continue unchecked is not perfect either.
References :
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.
References :
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
References :