CeolasJun 27th, 2009 - 04:53:27

Chris, The Us Chamber of Commerce is right...as are other critics.

---------
Cap and Trade is an expensive roundabout way of achieving...not very much.
-------- Whatever one’s attitude to greenhouse gas emissions, the point is that they can simply and effectively be lowered in a first phase just by changes in electricity and transport (together responsible for 4/5 of emissions). Moreover those changes are advantageous regardless of also lowering CO2 emissions:
----------- 1. Local environmental benefit from the reduction of noxious substances emitted from electricity or transport combustion of hydrocarbon fuel, regardless of any less tangible global benefit from CO2 reduction - and that is one reason why the focus on carbon trading is wrong, compared with the focus on reducing fuel combustion emissions.
---------2. Energy supply benefit from the diversification of electricity generation with related improved grid distribution and service competition for consumers.
----------3. Energy supply benefit from the diversification (electrification, hydrogen fuel enablement etc) of transport, reducing the dependency on oil imports.
-----------In 2020, from then available evidence, either 1. There is increasing consensus that global warming can’t be stopped anyway, and that further specific reduction attempts have no value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or 2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which case America is on track, and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts for the years 2030 aqnd 2050 that also bring in agriculture, cement, steel and other industry whose businesses hitherto did not need disruption.
------------------Cost to businesses - and the consumers - is kept to a minimum, by equity and long term loan finance, the latter can be fed/state guaranteed to keep down interest rates, with slow payback anyway giving little affected consumer electricity bills or car costs. No disruption of American business practice and planning, by emission trading. No volatile extra emission trading costs for a range of businesses, passed on to consumers. Understanding Cap and Trade + why it is bad for America, see ceolas.net/#cce5x
--------------------Also: The assumption is that all energy efficiency legislation is good for consumers. Wrong…inefficient products need to have special advantages or noone would buy them. The fact is that efficiency regulation on a product sacrifices performance, construction, appearance and price features, and does not necessarily give the savings suggested anyway.
----------------See ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards regarding efficiency regulation effect on buildings, lightbulbs, cars, dishwashers and other products.

Report this comment

No they don't:Jun 28th, 2009 - 08:47:16

The principle is a very simple but clever mechanism which utilises markets to price the 'cost' of carbon into the economy.

Companies who generate carbon emissions as outputs, as opposed to companies who generate emissions indirectly via their business inputs (the stuff they buy), like power companies and airlines are given a quota (or permit).

Permits can either be awarded or auctioned.

The idea is that there is a fixed limit on the volume of emissions and companies can trade their quotas. This means that companies who reduce their emissions below their quota can sell their surplus quota to another company who needs to produce more. This has the affect of increasing the cost of carbon emissions and incentivising companies to reduce their emissions.

Report this comment

SP4: will not workJun 28th, 2009 - 14:16:14

America is a failure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In America, politicians are among theeeee MOST corrupt on the planet.

And in America all the politicians can be bought....for the right price, of course!

Report this comment

SP4: PeopleJun 29th, 2009 - 17:28:19

...know when it is really me. Now run along and inform yourself.

Report this comment