15
   

CAP AND TRADE-FOR IT/AGIN IT?

 
 
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 04:57 am
The first cap and trade legislation was in the Bush I admin. The 1990 Clean Air act adopted a cap and trade methodology to control SOx(Sulfur Oxides emmissions causing ACID RAIN). The surprising effect has been to show that this technique ACTUALLY WORKS, and it actually drove DOWN the cost of SOx control.


NOW WE ARE ENGAGED IN A GREAT CIVIL WAR, where the former supportes of C/T are actually against it because (mostly) its being proposed by a DEM administration. NOW, I AM DEFINATELY AGAINST cap and trade for CO2 because Im certain that the science does NOT support a human induced cause of global warming.

If we argue science lets argue science, not emotion.
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:07 am
An interesting question, FM--i hope someone knowledgeable will weigh in. I recall the acid rain issue, and i believe it is correct to say that cap and trade for SO2 does not function the same as for CO2. If my recollection is correct, reducing SO2 is a local issue, while reducing CO2 is a global one. That is to say, when CO2 is released, it doesn't matter where it is released, but the release of SO2 is a site-specific issue.

Do you know of any core studies of Greenland ice or Antarctic ice which have attempted to establish an atmospheric base line for various chemicals?
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:18 am


Opposition to "cap-and-trade" grows in U.S.



Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills



The Cap and Tax Fiction

Is cap & trade just another vehicle to tax the citizens? YES
.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:26 am
@Setanta,
Thats part of the very problem, CO2 is ubiquitous in the atmosphere and is more a function of the planetary respiration and the sun than just a set of smokestacks. SOx is local only in the fact that it can be tracked :back" to the network of stacks that burn coal and bunker oil.

The cap and trade methodology for SOx was pretty much the same kind of model proposed for CO2. IF CO2 were a major industrial product as is being promoted, then I feel that it would be a great approach.

Ill send an e mail over toAlley at Penn State and see what he has on the "ubiquitous" aerosols in his Greenland cores. Im cerain that the worldwide budget from CO2 as determined from ice cores isnt orers of magnitude different from the Pleistocene till today.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:29 am
@H2O MAN,
Try to assimilate some of what you cut and paste . Try to put a cogent argument together on your own .

Remember that Bush I began Cap and Trade and IT WORKED FOR SULFUR. SO its not like it hasnt been implemented before.

Im afraid that much of the stuff that is being posted is merely regurgitation without assimilation.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:34 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Ill send an e mail over toAlley at Penn State and see what he has on the "ubiquitous" aerosols in his Greenland cores. Im cerain that the worldwide budget from CO2 as determined from ice cores isnt orers of magnitude different from the Pleistocene till today.


That's exactly the sort of thing i was wondering about--thanks, FM.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:38 am
@farmerman,


Try to understand that cap and trade is an Obama tax increase on all citizens.
Try to understand that no other big industrial country is considering this type of legislation.
Try and think before you post a comment.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:43 am
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Try to understand that no other big industrial country is considering this type of legislation.


This is absolutely bullshit. The only way this could, at a stretch, be considered true is that almost all other industrial nations already have such a program in place, so there's no need to consider legislation for what they are already doing. The European Union has been doing this since 2005. It's called the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Try to educate yourself before shooting off your mouth.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:47 am
@Setanta,


The European Union is not considered a big industrial country. It's a collective.
Think of China and you will have a better understanding of your mistakes.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:50 am
@H2O MAN,
The idiocy of your statement is breath-taking. I won't be reading any more of your posts, because i find this an interesting topic, and want to learn something. I don't have any interest in your un-informed, witless propaganda. I can find your partisan diarrhea all over this site, any time i were so incredibly bored i couldn't find anything more interesting to read.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:54 am
Thanks for starting this thread, FM. I've been having a similar discussion elsewhere and everyone there is against it as a national energy tax without reason. Obama says it's a jobs bill. In general, I'm all in favor of creating jobs, I'm all in favor of reducing our dependency on foreign oil, I'm all in favor of reducing CO2 emission if we can at a reasonable cost, but I'm not convinced this bill will accomplish any of those things.

I've been hoping to find someone who supports it with some real explanations on how it will accomplish those goals. I did some searching to see what I could find and found this discussion by UC Ecomonics professor, Casey Mulligan

Quote:
How Much Will It Cost?
Those “reallocation” costs are hard to know because, among other things, we do not yet know the degree to which restrictions on the building of new nuclear plants will be relaxed to help attain the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. One study puts these costs at about $300 per family per year, although from experience I have seen reallocation costs overestimated because the capacity for our economy to adjust to new circumstances is not adequately appreciated.

On the other hand, one reason that the reallocation costs might be underestimated is that the worldwide pattern of production can adjust so that some carbon-intensive production occurs outside the United States. To the degree that carbon-intensive production leaves the United States, the (financial) costs of cap and trade will be less, although so will be the benefits in terms of reducing global carbon emissions.

A second issue is the distribution of the emission allowances. Will emission allowances be auctioned by the government, as President Obama promised during his campaign? Or will they be given away to existing energy producers?

...

Reducing carbon is a goal shared by the Obama administration and a number of members of Congress. But, as with the promotion of hybrid vehicles, cleaning banks of their toxic assets, and other government ambitions, it takes more than a lofty goal to create good policy. Cap and trade is yet another example of how the details of regulation matter not only for the costs to taxpayers and consumers, but also for whether the policy actually pushes the economy in the intended direction.


I remain unconvinced that this is a good thing but would love to hear from a proponent.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:56 am
@Setanta,



Thanks for starting this thread, FM. The subject is serious.



Setanta, why are you even here? Shouldn't you be mourning the death of
your hero MJ instead of projecting your ignorance concerning world affairs?
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:56 am
@H2O MAN,
so your suggesting that america should be more like china, wow, the republicans really have changed their way of thinking
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:57 am
@djjd62,

so you're suggesting that I'm a republican?
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 06:02 am
@H2O MAN,
well if you're a closet socialist it's time to come out, your president needs you Very Happy
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 06:02 am



Dangers of Cap and Trade



Americans Increasingly Skeptical of Obama's Pledge of Fiscal Discipline as Deficit Grows
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 06:04 am
@djjd62,


My country does not need this president.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 06:11 am



Cap-and-trade-and-CONtrol

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Media/cap-and-trade.jpg
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 06:20 am
@JPB,
JPB's source wrote:
Those “reallocation” costs are hard to know because, among other things, we do not yet know the degree to which restrictions on the building of new nuclear plants will be relaxed to help attain the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.


This is an interesting aspect. France has for more than 30 years attempted to reduce their dependence on foreign energy sources, and has taken nuclear as the path to that goal. When i worked at the University of Illinois, i knew quite a lot of people in the French-speaking community (i worked for the Department of French), and there were literally dozens of French students in the nuclear engineering program who were getting a full ride from their government.

Nuclear is do-able, and it can be done safely. I will be interested to see if this now becomes a desirable option. I suspect that Three Mile Island no longer casts the shadow it once did.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 06:24 am
This is a hotly debated topic in Canada. Some of the western provinces already have an emissions trading system in place with some of the northwestern states of the United States. It becomes a tortured issue in Canada, because the companies which extract petroleum from the "oil sands" and "oil shales" produce huge amounts of CO2 in the process of getting at the petroleum. That makes a significant difference in the attitude of Alberta, which has been riding the oil sands gravy train for a while now.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » CAP AND TRADE-FOR IT/AGIN IT?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 10:24:08