Is Cap and Trade Already Corrupt?

Now that the House has passed Waxman-Markey, the stage is set for a much harder look at the actual implementation of cap and trade.

Speaking at an energy conference in San Francisco last week prior to the Congressional vote, negative reactions to the proposed cap and trade system were voiced by Chevron CEO David O'Reilly and by former Secretary of State George Schultz. O'Reilly labels the bill "an unmitigated disaster," and Schutlz calls cap and trade "a tax." That, of course, is their opinion, But Schultz's assertion that 85% of the credits have already been "given away" by Congress, if correct, is very troubling. Equally worrisome is his fear that in the hands of Wall Street, the cap and trade policy would be severely compromised, if not corrupted:

Watch the full program at FORA.tv. (Disclosure: Chevron is an advertiser on FORA.tv.)

Follow Blaise Zerega on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BeeZee

Comments

[adamnb]

Why is it that partisan politics continues to distort the history of cap and trade policies? It is an historical fact that the regional voluntary cap and trade system in the New England states actually worked to greatly reduce acid rain, a landmark success in environmental policy. The bill in Congress now being debated is modeled on that policy, save for the crucial difference that it is mandatory not voluntary. What would stop a voluntary plan from working on a broader scale? My guess, make it voluntary and opposition dissipates. People are smart; they know how to make things work. They also like choice.

[ranchomerced]

Pass it or not; the current crop of blooming idiots in congress and the senate will NOT be re elected next election cycle.

[JohnnyWalkerBlueLabel]

Cap and trade is a stealth tax on the middle class. One of many broken political promises by BHO.

[martinfrosa]

Is "Cap and Trade" already corrupt? Is this a serious question? Read the bill - they don't come any worse than this.

[marijam]

After reading excerpts from Matt Taibbi's article on Goldman Sachs, that would be a very big 10-4, Roger that. Yes.

[Rhetticent]

You people that support this insanity will be shocked, SHOCKED when it turns out that the same Wall Street brokers are making a killing off the arbitrage of offsets, and the coal-generated plants are allowed to pollute all they want as long as they hire Al Gore to plant trees for them in Botswana. WHAT A JOKE!!!!

[sheila]

If they wanted to help the environment AND the economy, they would provide a massive loan fund and administer it like CA's AB 811, so that every property owner with sunshine could install a PV system, then establish a fair payment for power WE feed into the grid (feed in tariffs). We can easily and cheaply produce 100% of our nation's electricity demand during sunny times, with storage and NG backup for evenings and storms.

This whole Big Energy program is a scam from start to finish. Big Solar, Big Wind and Big Transmission are extremely destructive and expensive. not only will they increase global warming (by destroying CO2 absorbing ecosystems like the Mojave, as well as spewing one of the worst GHGs, SF6), but they will slaughter plants, animals and bankrupt taxpayers and ratepayers.

The time, technology, economy and environment are ripe for DEMOCRATIC, DECENTRALIZED CLEAN POWER PRODUCTION from existing rooftops within the built environment. Anything else is a redistribution of wealth from hard-working people to Big Energy Robber Barons.

[NL207]

"The time, technology, economy and environment are ripe for DEMOCRATIC, DECENTRALIZED CLEAN POWER PRODUCTION from existing rooftops within the built environment"


Obviously you haven't priced any of this small scale hardware.

[SallyVCrockett]

We've given away so much in the process that Waxman-Markey is left basically ineffective. I hope Congress has the fortitude to start again with the alternative that the leading scientists and economists have been advocating since the beginning: a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

[BobLablah]

Of course it is. They're politicans who are only interested in getting re-elected. If they really wanted to help the environment they'd just add a 50% energy tax, but that would guarantee defeat and it would prevent them from giving special treatment to their donors.