When the conversation turns to cap and trade, is your first thought: "Oh, that will never work, it's too complicated?" It's true, it can be harder to get one's arms around than a gas tax or even a carbon tax -- who doesn't get taxes, right? -- but cap and trade is a familiar, and an effective means by which to reduce pollution among regulators and industry.
In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants took advantage of the allowance banking provision to reduce SO2 emissions 22 percent (7.3 million tons) below mandated levels for the first phase of the program. And on the global warming front, cap and trade is up and running in 10 states in the northeast and mid-Atlantic, which have pledged to work together to reduce climate altering pollution from regional power plants by 10 percent by 2018.
While driving down pollution, cap and trade will also generate a lot of money for investing in energy efficient programs and clean energy. These investments, in turn, will help to create over 2 million new American jobs in just 2 years.
Cap and Trade is a central feature of the American Clean Energy and Security Act which the House may vote on this week. Please take a minute to tell your representative "vote YES for ACES." Click here for a quick and easy way to send your message. Thanks.
That is why European failure and two carbon bubbles bursting in short time is never mentioned. Goldman not only trades there, but owns one actual carbon exchange.
Often invoked is the "SO2 program." But really, no one knows if this Enron run system "worked". It might have worked more inefficiently than only a traditional capping system. And it only involved major electricity producers, not just about every area of human endeavour as the present bill.
To pass a climate bill in the Senate is easy--just drop cap and trade, keep in the solar and other subsidies. But that won't happen because the money behind this bill, indeed, the money for a decade behind the public relations campaign for "climate change" rules is the cap and traders, Wall Street Finance.
Properties of water, water droplets, ice, evaporation and water vapor are the best coolers of air.
Clean energy sources-wind, solar cells, nuclear, geothermal not so clear as advertized and will bring to environment more damage than good things.
Our Government must free science of global warming from politic and fire all supporters of ideas that GHG are main players in nature.
As Democrats, as Republicans have the same opinion about GHG. Differences only who is responsible for their amount in nature.
Our mass media must stop propoganda about GHG-it is wrong and very dangerous set of mind.
No, the "cap" does.
But with trade that gives the polluter a less expensive "out" via purchase of carbon offsets.
That is how the system is constructed, in order that the trading houses to make their money.
IOW, if traditional "caps" are deployed, Clean Air regulations, higher fuel efficiency standards--how does Goldman Sachs make money off that? Same with carbon taxes, the money goes direct to government, traders get no cut, no opportunity to sell exotic carbon-backed papers, and so on.
" pledged to work together to reduce climate altering pollution from regional power plants by 10 percent by 2018."
Oh goody, goody. If we can't do better than this, we are all doomed. And secondly, at the current rate of job losses, 2 million won't begin to get us back on track. We will likely need to 10 times better on the pollution to have a significant impact on the current environmental destruction and at least 6 times better on the job creation.
Waxman-Markey allows a massive level of “offsets,†which blows away the “cap†in cap-and-trade. The two billion metric tons of offsets annually would provide almost 20 years during which cheap, essentially fraudulent offsets would be sufficient to meet all required reductions. These offsets would be counted as environmental progress on paper, while allowing degradation in reality. Those enriched by carbon-offsets, along with others who would profit from the bill’s free permits-to-pollute, would vigorously fight efforts for reform, even after the system’s flaws became obvious.
Waxman-Markey proponentsignore huge differences between the EPA acid rain program and climate challenges. In the Acid Rain program, EPA shepherded a few hundred existing coal-fired power-plant units with extremely accurate emissions measurement through a relatively manageable fuel switch from high-sulfur coal to readily-available, affordable, low-sulfur coal.
Carbon fees with monthly rebates could be the centerpiece of an affordable, equitable and rapid transition to our clean energy future. See http://www.carbonfees.org/home/Cap-and-TradeVsCarbonFees.pdf
Let's hear some specifics Wendy. It sounds like more "pie in the sky" to me, similar to the "green shoots" in the economy; spin.