CAP AND TRADE-FOR IT/AGIN IT?

There is only one real way to reduce energy consumption and that is for you and me to use less. If cap and trade forces the price of energy to a level that means we all need to curtail our use of easily available energy then that is a good thing. I do not believe this will happen however because it is the use of invisible energy that creates the problemin the first place. Invisible energy use is the electricity used by many thousands od TV's on standby it is the clock radio, the office lights left on at night the neon advertising, the fuel used by vehicals at traffic lights and many other uses.

I need a primer on CapAndTrade because I'm not clear on what it is. But just as a logical extension to your statement above... if C/T actually worked and drove down the cost of SOx control (as you say), then might it have the same effect on CO2 and drive down the cost of control? And wouldn't that be a good thing even if man-made CO2 is not a major contributor to Global Climate Change?

Cap and Trade - more accurately called "Cap and Tax" climate change scam.

" It takes a profoundly ignorant American to not realize that this bill is going to increase their cost of living by a fairly good clip. "

Here's a basic primer I used when I first started looking at this issue.

The bill that Obama wants passed numbers 1,201 pages... how many House members do you think read the entire bill?

Thanks for the primer. I think I get it. But it's too complex for me to draw immediate conclusions.

Cap and trade means that there is a nation-wide cap put on emissions. Those companies who cannot or who think they cannot work within the imposed limits can buy emissions credits (that's the "trade" part of cap and trade) from companies who don't reach their emissions limits. The idea is that the cost of buying carbon credits would spur business to take steps to reduce their carbon output.

The SO2 situation is not the same as the CO2 situation. Sulphur dioxide is generated locally in a plume, and comes down as acid rain. Carbon dioxide which is generated immediately spreads throughout the atmosphere, hence FM's reference to CO2 as ubiquitous. If i am not mistaken, FM's interest in this thread is not political rhetoric, but whether or not a cap on CO2 is a desirable thing. I think he is asking if there is good science which will support a contention that we need to make drastic changes to limit CO2 emissions.

This page maintained by the Environmental Defense Fund explains the SO2 cap and trade program. Please note that these people have a political motive, and that they are pushing a CO2 cap and trade, while (apparently) ignoring that the CO2 and the SO2 emissions issues are not analogous. I am not saying that a CO2 cap and trade system will not work, but i am saying that the SO2 program is not evidence that it will work.

My problem is that I can't find anyone who supports it to hear the other side. That's why I was glad FM opened the topic here. I'm still hopeful that someone familiar with the issue/legislation will post here.

I challenge you/anyone to find ANY evidence that Cap and Trade will work.

This is true. I supported Chang Kai Shek.
I deemed it an ineffable scandal that Truman gave China to the Reds.

I am the Republican who u point out changed his way of thinking.

I bowed to no man in how fiercely I opposed communism (or any socialism).
However, now, I recognize that if the Chinese had a full laissez faire free enterprize system,
their economy woud explode in prosperity and thay 'd compete with us for oil.

A communist economy will retard growth
and reduce the rate of its expansion so as to lessen Chinese
competition for oil with its consequent price increases.
Therefore, communism in China is our friend.

I certainly never thought I 'd say that.

Good point, djjd.





David

you seem to only talk in bumper stickers. Im not against the CONCEPT of cap and trade because it does work. Im concerened that in this case CO2 emissions dont jive with the science of global warming. Ive written to my congresspeople about this being a misguided piece of legislation and there are many climate sciemtists who are doubting the "settled science"

Its 1300 pages long and has several TBD sections in which (According to someone who has read the last version before TODAYS amendments were put in) they can "make added legislation after they vote.
WHAAAA?

Nuclear energy is a mature energy source and should be promoted in thus country. We have a bit of catching up because of our national paranoia based upon Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. TMI was actually a success based on very oldSCRAM technology. Chernobyl was just a typical example of Russian Incompetence witth cheap materials and underdesign.

In my judgment, cap and trade will work in the following sense: it will reduce CO2 emissions; its cost will approximately equals the costs of an effluence tax; and will be lower than any other method of reducing CO2 emissions.

On the other hand, although I'm less skeptical than you are about the existence of man-made global warming, I share your concern that the "cap" will be set too aggressively.

On balance, count me as neutral.

Air pollution control technologies are all similar in concept except that we cannot distinguish where the CO2 even comes from. SOx controls , by using the Bush I C/T, Sox was able to be controlled and the technology advanced so that the Sox reduction was actually reduced in cost. I dont think we can say that a similar condition will or wont happen re:CO2. All the present technologies are mostly revolving around "Sequestration" of CO2 and not anything that chemically reduces it (maybe Georgeob has better thoughts on this since its more his area).

HOWEVER, CO2, IMHO, will continue to degas from organic soils like peat or muskeg and boreal forests as temperatures keep rising. Also, much CO2 is emitted from the ocen as the calcium carbonate is dissolved insitu. Data is now being produced that shows that CO2 is a consequence of warming and not necessarily a cause of it.
Determining the source of CO2 is always a major problem that Cap and trade wont solve at this juncture. Cap and trade in other countries still costs way more than it benefits mostly because the climate models and source terms are not calibrated with reality.

Greenpeace is against this bill.

Dear maporsche,

In just a few hours, the House of Representatives will vote on global warming legislation that doesn’t live up to what the science shows we have to do to stop global warming. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) bill has been so heavily influenced by the coal and oil industries, that Greenpeace now opposes the bill.

President Obama vowed to “restore science to its rightful place” in his inaugural address, yet ACES all but ignores the science. Take action now and urge Obama to be a leader on global warming.

Here’s what’s WRONG with the legislation:
The Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that to avoid the worst climate impacts such as intense droughts, super charged hurricanes and increased heat waves, the U.S. and other industrialized countries must cut their emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. This bill, as it’s currently written, only calls for a 4% reduction by 2020. And there’s very little chance those targets will be improved.
These weak targets are made even worse by 2 billion tons per year of allowable offsets. Offsets allow polluters to put off for more than a decade real cuts in their emissions The offsets are so high that they will exceed the actual pollution reductions required until at least 2026 " that’s time we don’t have!
Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of global warming pollution in the U.S. In order to tackle climate change, we need to begin phasing out coal immediately. But instead of phasing-out coal plants, ACES will actually encourage the growth of a new generation of coal-fired plants! To add insult to injury, tens of billions of taxpayer dollars would be spent on the myth of carbon capture and sequestration " an untested and unproven technology that is decades away from full-scale deployment even by the most optimistic estimates.
Worst of all, ACES will actually remove the President’s existing authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act"an authority that was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Now that the House has proven that it won’t step up and stop global warming, President Obama’s power to regulate greenhouse gases is our greatest hope.

Urge your member of Congress to vote against this bill, and tell the President he MUST deliver on his campaign pledge to set climate policy based on science, not politics. Take action now!

Sincerely,

Carroll Muffett
Deputy Campaigns Director

I pretty much go along with this, except that i am probably as skeptical as FM on the significance of "man-made" CO2.

However, one caveat with my neutrality is that if science does definitively show that there is no significant human effect in CO2 levels, it will be a goddamned shame to have invested enormous resources to clean up a problem which the earth itself can deal with as efficiently or more efficiently that we can.

I voiced my skepticism before this site existed, and voiced it early on at this site. I was at least poo-pooed for expressing that opinion, and sometimes vigorously (though not viciously) attacked for it. So i learned to avoid comment. On the whole, if it does no harm, i don't see any reason not to limit CO2 output.

This is something about which i have long wondered as an amateur reader with a keen interest in science.



Years ago i read an article--i believe in the "Science Times" section of The New York Times--which asserted that the climate modelling then being done was fatally flawed because the random number generators (software) which were used were not reliably random. I don't recall the details, and i don't know, of course, if that were true, or if it is still a problem.

I think there are a whole lot of factors not being considered in the modeling. For starters, we are totally unable to quantify either the CO2 production from the metabolic action of the Krebs cycle in the animal kingdom or the total co2 consumption through photosynthesis by green plants. Without those data, there is no way to determine the effect by humans on CO2 and O2 on a planetary scale. Also, there can be no doubt, geologically speaking, that the planet is in a warming period between ice ages. To me, the inevitable conclusion is that human effects on a planetary scale are at least questionable, and quite probably insignificant. Even if they are, by excluding China, India, and other "developing" nations from the scope of our actions, I truly believe we are wasting a great deal of time and effort, and costing us all a large portion of our national income. This bill appears to me to be another example of political agendas trumping sound, affirmable science. Just my view from out here in the hinterlands.