Cap and Trade

[Davemcc]

In my view, the Waxman-Markey Bill makes global action on climate change more - rather than less – likely, and for that reason I think it should be supported. Even without a global cap on emissions, other countries, such as India and China, are attempting to reduce their emissions:

'[...] with China we should recognise (and people very often do not) how ambitious China is being on the environmental front. Essentially China saw the importance, particularly under Zhu Rongii, when it started, and he was PM in the mid 1990s, and the challenges of air pollution in cities, of soil erosion, water stress and so on, and that consciousness was strong. They now have reforestation, increasing forests in China and not reducing. The headline ambitions in the Chinese "Five-Year Plan" are two really: growth rate, 9% or so, which I guess they will achieve; and to cut the energy output ratio by 20% in five years. In the five-year plan they talk about a number of harmonies: harmonies associated with income distribution; harmonies associated with the economy and the environment; harmonies associated with the balance between domestic growth and foreign growth. There are four or five harmonies of which, I think it is fair to say, environment and the economy is the leading one. They are engaging quite strongly in these issues and that context is very important. I have been working in China now for nearly 20 years, India for more than 30 years, and living in both places at various times, and I think both places in the last year or two have seen a focus on climate change and energy efficiency of a kind I have not seen in those decades previously in those two countries. The resentment on the equity front is strong in both places, and understandably. That is why we have to think through how we can be good partners for action. I think the key elements (and these were the key elements in our discussions) are making sure that the carbon trading scheme, the greenhouse gas trading scheme, would generally work strongly. We are going to need carbon financial flows far, far higher than the $½ billion or $1 billion per year we are currently seeing under the CDM [*]. It should be in the $10/$20/$30 billion in the kind of area we should be looking at if it is going to play a strong part in financing the carbon reduction; because India and China have a very strong and understood (and it is an action point for them) incentive to be more energy efficient—it saves them money and makes them more secure. It is that carbon step from energy to carbon where there has to be strong incentives.'

Prof Nicholas Stern
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmenvaud/227/7011602.htm

* CDM = Clean Development Mechanism, one of the Kyoto Protocol's flexibility mechanisms.

You know, it's great that that guy thinks that about China...too bad he's wrong. Reality is a harsh mistress.

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaDealsNews/idUSTRE56231920090703

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-01/19/content_6406387.htm

http://news.alibaba.com/article/detail/business-in-china/100120802-1-china%27s-coal-imports-hit-9.43.html

 

[Tomorrow]

Notice not one supporter of the notion of global warming and the Waxman-Markey bill has offered any scientific proof, be it an anecdotal, or better yet more extensive studies demonstrating that the bill will do anything to gain a net positive outcome on the world's climate situation or establish a positive-use value on the trillions of dollars and millions of lost jobs it will cost the U.S.

It's sort of like Mtrycrafts going out and buying a new, really really expensive amp because of Stereophile reviews that prefer its "chocolatey mids produced by the quantum flux capacitors while somehow simultaneously offering superlative neutrality only guessed at by other, lesser amps". You'd be buying this crap because that's what someone told you to do... without any critical thought in the process...without looking at the specs, even. That process would be bad form in the educated a/v world, and it's even worse form in the world of trillion dollar politics amidst a seriously faltering economy.

 

[bandphan]

the IPCC Mandate, from their website
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Here's a little homework for you, mtry. How about you applying your fondness for quoting scientific, peer reviewed, creditable research and tell us what has been done to demonstrate that the Waxman-Markey bill has any real legitimacy or value in defeating global warming. Hmmm?

Certainly trading credits is a boondoggle for Wall street, a horrible idea. Reduction, not capping is the goal, or should be. Also, getting those two giants on board

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... Our country is in a great deal of economic peril at the moment. ...).

When was it not in an economic peril, or any meaningful length of time? A blip here or there is meaningless. It has been in one for a very long time.

 

[Tomorrow]

When was it not in an economic peril, or any meaningful length of time? A blip here or there is meaningless. It has been in one for a very long time.

It appears that common sense is taking a particularly long vacation this year.

 

[jamie2112]

It appears that common sense is taking a particularly long vacation this year.

Who's common sense? And why does he get a longer vacation then me ?

 

[Tomorrow]

Who's common sense? And why does he get a longer vacation then me ?

LOL, I needed that laugh! Thanks, Jamie.

 

[Alex2507]

When was it not in an economic peril ...

During the Golden Clinton Years. Remember?

Before the republicans ruined it all.

 

[Davemcc]

When was it not in an economic peril,

During the Golden Clinton Years. Remember?

Yup, you're correct. The Clinton Years, where Reagan's economy still had a profound effect.

 

[lsiberian]

Yup, you're correct. The Clinton Years, where Reagan's economy still had a profound effect.

And the democratic house of representatives that joined with reagan on his programs.

 

[Tomorrow]

And the democratic house of representatives that joined with reagan on his programs.

And the Democratic House and Senate get credit for Bush's last two years of terrific service.

 

[lsiberian]

And the Democratic House and Senate get credit for Bush's last two years of terrific service.

lol they were better than the years where he dominated the government. IMO.

I think having different parties in power is best. It sheilds us from stupidity. Sadly other people that voted for Obama didn't agree with me.

 

[mtrycrafts]

During the Golden Clinton Years. Remember?

Before the republicans ruined it all.

A short blip on the radar, unfortunately. Now the debt is climbing to 12T and it will not go away in any one's life living today.

 

[bandphan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090711/sc_mcclatchy/3269899

from the first paragraph...

If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

 

[Lordoftherings]

A short blip on the radar, unfortunately. Now the debt is climbing to 12T and it will not go away in any one's life living today.

We'll miss the day of the big pay cheque then?

 

[annunaki]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090711/sc_mcclatchy/3269899

from the first paragraph...

If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

And I thought the last administration used fear tactics...

This one uses jobs, economy, & the apocalypse to push policy.

 

[markw]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090711/sc_mcclatchy/3269899

from the first paragraph...

If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

What she (and others of her ilk) don't realize is that even if we implement cap & trade, unless China, India and other "developing" nations cut back on their pollution, nothing significant will happen. They won't. China is still a coal-fired economy that doesn't even use scrubbers.

Economically, we're slitting our wrists. And, for a start, we'll personally be directly affected by major increases in our utility bills.

As for new technology, we've seen over and over again that once we do R & D and develop the process, the big companies send the mass manufacturing overseas. Why should we think this will be any different?

 

[lsiberian]

I'm sorry, but this is getting old.

The government will not solve this crisis and their proposals will make little difference in the ultimate effects IMO.

Problem 1. This bill doesn't do enough to cut emissions. If the globe really is getting hotter then what the heck are we doing only cutting our emissions 20 percent over the next critical 15 years.

Solution- Let consumer pressure drive down emissions. Publish the worst polluters so we can punish them by doing business elsewhere.

Problem 2. This bill is too costly. Our government can't do it all despite what they think and this my friends this is all coming about because of the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. Why should these companies get any help from the government considering their decisions to produce vehicles that contributed to global warming. Yeah all those SUVs that people bought didn't help our situation and brought us a lot of problems. I say let them fail if you screwed our environment by making bad cars and polluting SUVs you deserve to fail.

Solution- ban the sale of SUV in cities. You can sell them in rural areas where they might be used, but honestly who in the city needs an SUV.

Problem 3. This could raise transportation costs and hurt truck drivers. I'm sorry but our nation runs on Trucks and these guys should be getting a discount on diesel IMO. Not an increase in taxes.

Solution- put in a provision to help truck drivers with the costs of fuel.

Problem 4. Speed Limits are too high. Yet no one will lower them and enforce them with cameras. By reducing the speed limit to 55 MPH the amount of torque required to move the vehicle is around 1/2 to 1/4th of that required to go 80. That means a signficant drop in fuel consumption. Not to mention the drop in highway fatalities.

Solution- lower the speed limit and put up speed cameras. Jail people that speed excessively and give anyone a ticket that goes even 1 mile over 55.

These are things that might help emissions and speed limit reduction would reduce our oil consumption.

 

[Rickster71]

The problem starts with people being irrational when it comes to politics.
If you really stop and think, it's the biggest problem we face, because it is a problem that prevents us from solving other problems. Before we can solve the problem of Pollution, we must first have correct beliefs about Pollution and Global Climate Change, about what causes it, what reduces it, and what the side effects of alternative policies are.

If our beliefs about those things are being guided by Subjective, speculative, and anecdotal arguments, the social group we want to fit into, the self-image we want to maintain, the desire to avoid admitting to having been wrong in the past, and so on, then it would be pure accident if enough of us were to actually form correct beliefs to solve the problem.