China to institute cap-and-trade system

Commie see, commie do.

“Why is this significant? Republicans have long argued that there is no sense in capping greenhouse gas emissions in the United States if major emitters like China refuse to impose caps of their own.”

Well, not really. That was the argument for the Kyoto Accord and any other international agreement on “climate change.” The republican opposition to “Cap and Trade” is that the bill has less to do with the environment and more to do with the government opening another vein in the American people for tax revenue.

And the democrats think that if they say they’re only going to tax the utility companies you’ll be too stupid to realize that the companies will just pass the tax along to you in your energy bill.

That’s why republicans oppose this scam. People can barely pay their utility bills now and the government wants to raise them further? During the campaign, even Obama admitted that this plan would cause your utlity bills to “skyrocket.”

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” Obama told the Chronicle . “Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

http://tinyurl.com/yhzwc7l

Thanks for the link, Dennis. The somewhat dated St. Petersburg Times article, published November 16 last year, mentions

“Revenue from the permits would be passed to consumers through rebates or expanded efficiency programs, and an additional 15 percent of the revenue would go directly to low-income consumers. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale …”

Of course, details of the cap-and-trade system continue to evolve, but I only need to repeat this much of that well-balanced article to point out the unnecessarily alarmist tone of Dennis’ comment above which I construe as an attempt to shut down further public discussion of climate change and cap-and-trade both of which will affect all of us.

Let’s be honest, Lane, the democrats dropped this idea because with their jobs on the line in November, they didn’t want to risk that the people are as stupid as they think they are.

Really? The way I see it, the votes just aren’t there yet to pass cap-and-trade which indicates there’s still more work to do. If this results in even better legislation, so be it.

I think you’re right, Dennis, but for a different reason. 1) A lot of Democrats are really very conservative, just not conservative enough to get endorsed by the increasingly unhinged right wing which controls the Republican Party in each district. Hence, they become “Democrats” who appeal to a number of people who actually believe they are “liberals.” We know better now don’t we?

2) These conservative Democrats believe that the far right whack jobs in their states/districts will attack them for being “socialist” , which they cannot be. On the othr hand, they don’t want to be seen as against their party so they therefore oppose attempts to even vote on the issue.

Pure cowardice? Obviously. Cap and trade is actually a basically free market idea which has been used by the FCC to issue cellular telephone licenses and by the EPA to curb acid rain.

The morons/demagogues who lead the right are not interested in explaining this to their constituents. They don’t care if the Greenland and polar ice caps all melt sooner. They (like Bachmann) think this is all about the Apocalypse and the Second Coming. That’s why she (they) support Israel because they (she) believe it will hasten Christ’s return.

Maybe that’s true. You or I may also die tonight. But is that what you honestly believe, Dennis? Should we run the US Government on the assumption that Christ will return let’s say, by 2012?

jonerik – Show me how paying money to the federal government will have a direct effect on the polar ice caps and you may have an argument. Otherwise, you’re the kind of Kool-Aid drinker these scam artists depend on.

Cap-and-trade is one of the free market-based approaches used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. Cap-and-trade is already in effect in the United States; a national market exists to reduce acid rain and several regional markets in nitrogen oxides.

Given the growing body of documentation on climate change including disappearing polar ice caps and snowfields/glaciers in the mountains (which supply fresh water year-round), thawing permafrost leading to the release of trapped methane gas (a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon), rising ocean water temperatures leading to the release of even more methane, de-stabilizing of weather patterns leading to more droughts and hurricanes, the disappearance of Greenland icebergs possibly disrupting the Gulf Stream and thus the ocean currents worldwide thus affecting weather (Europe will become hotter and drier) and on and on along with the well-documented effects of runaway greenhouse gases along with carbon being one of the major greenhouse gases, carbon markets are inevitable.

The net effect of a well-designed cap-and-trade will be to make carbon pollution more expensive compared to greener technologies. Revenues to the federal government, if any, can be used to subsidize further development and implementation of those greener technologies as well as to fund tax credits for those companies who take steps to reduce carbon pollution and rebates to consumers who take steps to be more energy-efficient. Market forces will force out the major carbon polluters. It is a win-win situation for everyone in the long run, if done right – except perhaps the oil and coal companies who are of course doing their utmost to fight any carbon cap-and-trade.

I suspect the terrorists dependent on oil revenue will not appreciate carbon markets either.

Come to think of it, I won’t be surprised if in the near future some nations will retaliate against those who do not have carbon cap-and-trade in place by imposing a carbon-based tariff on imports from those countries effectively raising the cost of those imports.

Droughts and water shortages often result in political instability which leads to a less safe world for everyone including Americans.

Lane, you need to learn what “free market solutions” are. A system based on financial incentives is not a free market solution if the financial incentive is nothing more than tax avoidance.

If this is such a great idea and a “free market solution,” than take the government out of the equation, make it voluntary, and we’ll see how it does. Because after all, one of the things that makes the free market “free” is that participation is voluntary.

Oh, and regarding “climnate change?”

http://tinyurl.com/5cfmdp

“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

Lane has done a good job of explaining in a relatively few words what’s at stake, Dennis. And cap-and-trade is a form of free market solution. What is assumes though, is that we cannot as a nation, collectively release more than a given amount of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases). If you think that cap-and-trade is about paying money to Washington DC and bingo ice caps stop melting, you have no clue about climate change. Please identify what it is you object to about “cap-and-trade. If you object to higher energy bills, don’t you think that people in the US are going to have to pay more anyway given we produce only a third of what we consume and that we have probably already passed peak oil?

Have you seen “An Inconvenient Truth?” I’d be happy to discuss specific points in the film. And don’t dismiss it because it was produced by Al Gore. Gore is only presenting the best available evidence for what is happening and what we can do about it. If we choose and before it’s too late. I’m afraid time has run out.

Please, jonerik, you seem like a nice person, but you’ve been sold a bill of goods. I’m sorry to have to break it to you, but making your gramma have to pay double for her heat and electricity so Al Gore and other scammers can make billions on “carbon credits” is not a good thing and that’s the inconvenient truth.

Great !! The Chinese get all of our jobs.. Mimic American Capitalism while maintaining a brutal Communist Dictatorship.. AND they are gonna kick our ass in the Green Revolution too!! Wow!! Reagan’s corpse is smiling and Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave..

>> “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

I interpret this statement to mean that the scientists need to re-state their findings in terms that the general public can understand. An analogy would be for the project manager overseeing the development of a complex enterprise-wide computer system re-stating the current status in terms of impacts on deadlines and the bottom line to business managers who would not tolerate their time wasted on minutiae whose technical aspects may be beyond their understanding.

>> but making your gramma have to pay double for her heat and electricity so Al Gore and other scammers can make billions on “carbon credits” is not a good thing and that’s the inconvenient truth.

Dennis is being alarmist again. This was already mentioned above:

“Revenue from the permits would be passed to consumers through rebates or expanded efficiency programs, and an additional 15 percent of the revenue would go directly to low-income consumers. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale …”

>> If this is such a great idea and a “free market solution,” than take the government out of the equation, make it voluntary, and we’ll see how it does. Because after all, one of the things that makes the free market “free” is that participation is voluntary.

Cap-and-trade is indeed a free market-based solution in that the polluting companies are free to devise their own solutions to reduce their carbon prints both to avoid fines and increase their abilities to sell unneeded carbon credits, if any, for a profit. Of course, fines and such will be passed along to the consumer, but the consumer will be free to buy that same product from another company that can sell it at a lower cost because it utilizes production methods that result in a lower carbon print and reduced need to buy carbon credits or increased ability to sell its excess credits for a profit. Voluntary participation by companies in activities, especially those with environmental and human impacts, would be the exception given the companies exist only to make profits. Finally, the cap on carbon output must be nation-wide; everyone must participate in order to be fair to everyone.

As for climate change, it already is happening; there are concerns that we may be a little too late to avoid what is called the runaway greenhouse effect. But we don’t know that so we must continue to address this issue and take all appropriate action possible.

This must leave the American Republicans as the last major group in the world still clinging to denial over man-made pollution and it’s negative effects on the environment.

They must be so proud that even communist China is now more environmentally responsible and more successful capitalists than they are.

I am posting this comment again here from another Minnesota Independent article talking about North Dakota Senator Dorgan and his efforts to strengthen the RES (renewable energy standard) mandating at least 25% of our country’s electricity to be generated by renewable energy sources such as wind and solar:

Minnesota is already ahead of the curve with the “Next Generation Energy Act of 2007″ signed into law by GOVERNOR PAWLENTY (who recognizes climate change!) on May 25, 2007, which calls for among other goals, statewide GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions reduction goals of 15 percent by 2015, 30 percent by 2025, and 80 percent by 2050. Rep. Bill Hilty, Sen. Ellen Anderson, and Rep. Kathy Tingelstad stuck their necks out to get this legislation passed; I know Sen. Anderson has done more work since then.

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/05/31/minnesota-governor-signs-energy-and-climate-bill/

Senator Dorgan’s goal is to have the 25% RES by 2025.

I don’t think so, Zera Lee. The british people, for example have finally seen the scam for what it is.

If you think about it, the only “major groups” in the world who are still pushing this nonsense are leftist governments and those in academia who depend on government checks.

http://tinyurl.com/2ewqaak

Dennis, I agree with the comments from Lane and Zera Lee. But I feel the need to add my own comment here. I checked out your link and I find it interesting. I’m not a climate scientist but there are a number of what appears to me credible scientists arguing for other points of view. My mind remains open to being persuaded otherwise. I hope you can say the same.

But let me try to sharpen the focus of our issue. What we are disagreeing about is not whether in fact human activities cause climate change. Lawmakers/policymakers and we non-scientists are not going to settle the scientific question of whether human generation of carbon dioxide is changing the climate to make our world uninhabitable. Maybe that question will never be settled.
Let me ask you though. Do you think smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer? Would it surprise you to know that there is no scientific proof that conclusively establishes that smoking causes cancer. (in the sense that if you ingest a certain amount of arsenic, you will die). What we are disagreeing about is what to do about scientific evidence in the face of uncertainty. Or as it has been described “the precautionary principle.”

http://environmentalcommons.org/precaution-debating.pdf

This is a somewhat controversial principle. It might surprise you to learn that the neocons who advocated invasion of Iraq used this principle to overcome doubts that Iraq actually had any weapons of mass destruction.

The reason I believe that even in the face of doubt about whether climate change is caused by human activity, we ought to base our public policies on the supposition that there is at least a scientific consensus that supports it. In other words, you don’t necessarily have to believe that catastrophic climate change is caused by human activity. You simply have to accept that if it’s true, can one avoid what seems to be the cause in some fashion. I can’t avoid the world bringing about 385ppm/year CO2, but collectively can tax corporations who excessively release CO2 based on our collective demands for electricity which today does not account for the external costs of energy usage.

Hope this didn’t “tax” your brain too much, buddy. Enjoy your weekend.

Just to be clear, Dennis, I was referring to your link you posted yesterday.

“The british people, for example have finally seen the scam for what it is.

“If you think about it, the only “major groups” in the world who are still pushing this nonsense are leftist governments and those in academia who depend on government checks.”

Dennis, the UK Telegraph does not speak for the “british people” any more than the Wall Street Journal or New York Times speak for the “American people.” I’m sure there are many climate change deniers in the UK. That there are doubters doesn’t mean that governments should not take immediate action to prevent the arguably preventable.

Nice try, Dennis, but England has it’s own wingnuts and I will take The Register over a rag like the Telegraph any day.

The United States was the only country of any significance in the world that did not adopt the Kyoto Protocol. As the biggest polluter in the world, it was a setback that cost more than ten years and allowed the problem to become significantly worse.

The only people still in denial are the dysfunctionally conservative, the anti-intellectuals, the paranoid conspiracy theorists, End Time cult Christians, and alien abductees.