Cap-and-Trade Climate Bill – Inadequate, Basically Wrong
Despite the outrage from the right and extreme right about the climate bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, the legislation is totally off-base and as its stands, it will barely help the environment at all. As a matter of fact conservatives have focused their fury on the handful of Republicans who voted in favor of the sweeping legislation and have been praising the Democrats who have voted against it.
What we basically have is that science – and you cannot really debate science politically – tells us that there is a climate problem and that unless we take immediate and sweeping steps immediately, the consequences for the ecosystem that our children and grandchildren will live in will be serious and severe.
There is a saying that “everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not to his own facts”. Climate change is one of those cases in which we have facts, despite what the naysayers might be saying. It is of course a global problem and the U.S., or Europe alone, without the cooperation of China and India and the rest of the world will not be able to accomplish much.
Frankly, we have to agree – at least in part with some of the conservatives, as the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill is not really the most efficient way of handling the problem. It will once again create a huge trading market for Wall Street; it will become another object of speculation. The permits to emit carbon, the speculation, and the derivatives will not only increase the overall cost of the program, but will also make our energy costs more volatile.
In short: there are better ways of addressing the climate change than a cap-and-trade system. One is the carbon tax in which you would collect the tax from the polluters and recycle the revenues towards more environmentally-friendly energy producing sectors. That would of course make the dirtier sources of energy more expensive, while making solar, wind and other “clean” energy sources relatively cheaper.
This would make businesses and individuals more interested in investing into these clean sources of energy and into a low-carbon economy in general. Wall Street would also have relatively little – if anything – to do with this process and that after all the mess that the Street shysters have caused for everyone seems encouraging in its own right.
A carbon tax would not only be considerably less complicated and not so prone to speculation as the cap-and-trade option, but it would actually encourage people and businesses to purchase and use less polluting vehicles and appliances and provide a real incentive to produce energy – electricity in particular – in a much more environmentally friendly manner.
The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill will not really reduce emissions, or produce any environmental benefits for at least 10 years. It is also the kind of bill that makes the coal producers perfectly comfortable. Many pollution permits were given to utilities that use the coal. What the bill really amounted to was as it is often the case – another noble idea that was incredibly diluted under pressure from lobbyists and special interests to the point of becoming pretty much useless.
The only thing that seems to make Americans change their wasteful habits is cost. When the price of gasoline exceeded $4 per gallon, everyone rushed to buy a fuel-efficient vehicle and the huge SUVs were almost impossible to sell. Most automakers – particularly those who relied on pickups and other large vehicles felt the pinch the most. Now that gasoline costs considerably less than $3 per gallon, people are not so worried anymore and that believe it, or not is not very good news at all. That’s why we need to have an incentive such as a carbon tax. It would make people and companies see that being greener, less wasteful and less polluting basically costs less in the long run, besides protecting the environment.
In a way cap-and-trade would do that also, to a degree, providing we have a real cap, so we are actually reducing emissions. In that manner the price of energy would go up, based on its carbon content. The cap-and-trade option is a supremely complicated way of achieving anything, as you would have to go through many steps to actually achieve any results. And at each of those steps different interests could intervene. The carbon tax solution would be much simpler, most likely cheaper overall, more efficient and less prone to speculation.
The European cap-and-trade system, known as the Emission Trading System (ETS), is the world’s largest pollution market, and it offers important lessons for the U.S. The main lesson is that cap-and-trade, by itself, won’t make much of a dent.
Despite what the naysayers, special interests and conservatives in general might say, we can only hope that the U.S. Senate will not go along with the cap-and-trade model and that it will show some leadership, common sense and backbone and will actually approve a carbon tax climate bill – one that is not diluted by special interests and lobbyists, but the kind of legislation that will actually do both the environment and all of us some real good.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!Tagged with: Basically • bill • Cap and Trade • carbon tax • Climate • congress • Environment • inadequate • Wrong
Filed under: Business • Economy • Environment • U.S. Politics • global warming • greed • politics
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!











Well – considering there is NO factual evidence that climate change is man-made nor is there any factual evidence that we can even impact it – this is a bad bill all around. At least we agree on that aspect. Rather than post the many many many links that indicates climate change is natural and cyclical and the fact we are 10 years in to a 30 year cooling cycle and the fact that global temperatures have been pretty flat for the past 3 years – you can just find them all on my blog from very credible sources – NOAA, The National Geologic Society, and other science websites. Just look for either “global warmongering” or “global warming” in the tag cloud. There are no credible sources that are saying global warming is man made and the earth continues to warm. They have all been debunked now and the international concensus is beginning to shift away from the gorebecile.
Even greenpeace says this is a bad bill. If the biggest environmentalists don’t support it – how can it be good for the environment?
As I said, it is a bad bill. We have to do much better than that.
As far as no credible evidence being out there, that’s as the British say – poppycock.
Climate change is not limited to temperature variations. Other factors come into play as well and people DO have an impact, bigger, or smaller, but certainly significant.
I will not go into minute details here, but the so-called “natural” cycle is progressing much faster than it probably ever had during the history of the Earth. That is significant in its own right.
A carbon tax for polluting would be not just a source of revenue, but a catalyst to modify our use and production of energy.
I always get a kick when the Global Warming Worshipers talk about the science of global warming, especially Al Gore’s science. Anyone who trusts Al Gore and believes in “global warming” are being suckered, and he‘s getting filthy rich from you. I remember the early 70’s when “the scientists”, with the same style of alarmism, were telling us that carbon emissions and other so called green house gasses are blocking out the rays of the sun and are causing a “global ice age”; look it up, I lived it. They both can’t be right so neither can be trusted, the science needs to be revisited with vigorous debate before they start killing us with taxes. How does the “science” explain the switch from “Global Ice Age” to “Global Warming”?
It isn’t just Al Gore, although he did make money out of this – not that he really needed it, though.
What’s your “constructive” suggestion, then? To keep on driving the Ford Excursions, to keep polluting with carbon emissions and to poison everything with all kinds of chemicals?
You certainly can make science political. One reason why Obama’s EPA suppressed an anti-global warming study.
It won’t pass the Senate and when Clinton tried the BTU tax the same thing happened and the Dems lost the House.
Let’s pray for a repeat!
@ Bobo You said: Well – considering there is NO factual evidence that climate change is man-made nor is there any factual evidence that we can even impact it – this is a bad bill all around. … There are no credible sources that are saying global warming is man made and the earth continues to warm.
Well, I guess it depends on how you define facts and who you think is credible. Christ, even Bush came around to understanding this issue.
That said, I have to agree with what is being said about cap and trade. My view is that the ship has sailed and our kids will have to deal with yet another mess we have left them. As Ken Kesey wrote in Catch-22, Oh well, what the hell.
Don’t believe this is not a tax on those making under $250,000 and 95% of Americans will not get taxed. Everything this bill touches will go down the FOOD chain. Gas, electricity, food, products and services. Everything will go up, but it’s not a tax on you. Not to mention man made climate change is a myth.
http://animal-farm.us/change/more-on-crap-trade-491
Maybe it is high time that we finally stop politicizing reality.
Dems lost the house and who did we get? Nothing to be proud of. Not that it is much better now…
Do you have any constructive suggestions to the problem? If so, I would like to hear them and so would the senators.
As it stands now, the food prices have gone up because of the price of oil. Maybe coming up with more viable sources of energy will not only help the environment, but also (in time) will lower the cost of producing food – which is poisoned in any case…
Ethanol also caused the price of food to go up. And because solar and other BS forms of energy are 500% more expensive than oil I’m sure the price of food will go down. That’s Liberal Econ 101. But at $20 per pound those tofu bars will sure taste great.
If Dems are serious they would build nuclear power plants.
Ethanol is a huge scam. Are you calling solar and all the other forms of energy generation as bullshit?
Just wait, the price of oil will keep inching up and the other forms of energy will keep getting cheaper. What is this obsession with instant gratification? Think a little further ahead than tomorrow!
Let me see, the conservatives are promoting nuclear energy in the U.S., but are ready to do almost anything for Iran not to have it. Right?
I guess that I am among the lucky ones, as I have never in my life bought a tofu bar. Have you?
I am all for conservation – however, not at the end of a barrel through increased taxes. I have solar panels on my own home, electricity regulators attached to my circuit breaker, low flow toilets, and energy saving products (refrigerators, washing machine, and dryer, and an upgraded central air handler). I also recycle and use the LED lightbulbs (I refuse to use CFL – I have kids and the mercury in them is very toxic). I do my part – (I know, and you thought we conservatives hated the planet). The reason why though is purely selfish and I believe is a huge incentive – money! I save a helluva lot of money every year through my own investments in lower energy products and especially from my solar panels. The solution is the free-market. Once people realize how much money they can save to put back in to disposable income they would turn to these alternatives as well. In addition, the government gives you a 30% tax break on the purchase price of these products when you file your taxes. The solution is not through forced government programs.
One other thing – sorry – regarding nukes in Iran – you can’t be serious? The reason is because they don’t need nuclear power plants – they are a VERY oil rich country – they are the 4th largest oil producing country in the world. They only want nuke technology for the bombs. Giving a country that is hellbent on destroying America and Israel is indeed a bad idea.
Good for you Bobo!
Now maybe you would care to explain to Harrison that statements such as: “solar and other BS forms of energy” are not quite as true as he seems to think?
I doubt if they are hell bent on destroying anybody, particularly the U.S. But if what Harrison says “If Dems are serious they would build nuclear power plants.” is true and “nukelar” is the environmentally sound way to proceed, why shouldn’t the Iranians have that option as well? Both the U.S. and Israel have nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons, after all.
In any case, I am not a great fan of nuclear power plants. They are too dangerous and I am confident that we can actually develop safer and more efficient energy sources than that.
Is solar bullshit? No. Is it expensive? Yes. Does it work all the time? No. Can you generate it in places where it’s most needed? No. Does the entire industry rely on tax money to stay alive? Yes. That’s why it’s bullshit.
Obama wants Iran to have nuclear power not the US. I’ll take the Republican side!
I have had Tofurkey only.
First of all Tofurkey sounds like bullshit.
Second: there are new, improved solar solutions being implemented. Among them ways to store the energy in the form of heat, so electricity can continue to be produced even at night and on cloudy days. It is also getting cheaper by the hour. There’s also wind power, wave power, geothermal, methane produced by many sources, including farts, etc, etc.
There are many issues to be resolved, but that doesn’t mean that we should just give up.
I don’t think that Obama actually “wants” Iran to have nuclear power and we already have it. Just go visit Three Mile Island.
You are all funny. One guy says because Iran has oil they don’t need nuclear power, as if oil provides electricity. Their electricity comes mostly from traditional thermal sources (e.g. coal) and to a lesser degree from hydro. I’m not arguing they need nuclear, but given the recent droughts, they need to beef up their supply to meet demand.
And another guy argues that solar is bullshit. Why is it bullshit? Because it’s expensive and doesn’t work all the time. Well, yes those are true, but these answers beg the questions, “Why is it expensive?” and “Why does it not work all the time?” Have you asked yourself these questions?
Dano, yea I have asked myself those questions. Solar doesn’t work when the sun doesn’t reach it. Duh. Successful countries are not built on having power when there’s wind or sun. You need “always on” forms like coal, nuclear, etc… (like we have now). Google wind farms dying in Texas and blackouts in case you need more info.
Let private industry develop solar, wind, or jogging power generation… I don’t care! Fact is, solar is the most expensive of all “alternative” forms of energy to generate and its returns are not so great. And what’s so green about it when you look at all the diesel, coal, and nuclear input energy you need to build it?
You guys must have bought into the buy the world a Coke ad with the green hills and people running all over being happy. The reality is solar power and wind power are like a Mercedes-Benz S550… it’s a great car, it’s a safe car, it’s an advanced car… but few people can afford it.
And back to Harrison again. Saying that solar doesn’t work in the dark is – as I mentioned earlier – not quite true. Read this,as one of the examples: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061903404.html
Ok let’s do a little maff here.
That solar power plant will cost $700 to build and will produce 100 megawatts, or 100,000 kilowatts.
There is a nuke plant that is not yet built but will produce power, once constructed, at $1,000 per kilowatt.
If I did my maff correctly (I was an English major) your solar plant will cost $7,000 per kilowatt.
Hence, solar is BS.
Uh, that’s $700 MILLION not $700!
Harrison, there’s either something wrong with your keyboard, your maff, or you were not an English major at all
Actually, this is an experimental, molten salt solar plant, so it is expensive. Just think how much the first nuclear, or for that matter the first coal, or oil-fired one cost way back in the past, as compared to later ones.
Would you be willing to lease you backyard for a nuke plant? I think that they are looking for locations, as nobody wants them anywhere near.
I don’t have a backyard.
And in California they can’t even build a solar power plant in the desert!
http://harrisonprice.com/2009/03/25/please-dont-spoil-our-views/
I think my maff was right!
Maff was right if you compared apples and oranges. In addition, anything of an experimental nature such as that molten salt solar plant will always be more expensive that a run-of-the-mill plant, of which many have already been built. A little patience is in order.
No backyard?! You poor thing…I personally think that the Mojave desert is much more valuable and beautiful than many of our urban centers. How about building a nuke plant in Manhattan, for example?
First – I live in Florida – so – solar is affordable and beneficial for my personal home. As for solar farms – they are expensive to build. Harrison – sorry – gonna have to side with Politicus regarding the storage of energy. The technology is available – but on small homeowner and apartment building sizes – not to the point where it could power a grid. Wind Farms take up even larger spaces – that’s why eco-nutjobs like Robert Kennedy also has rejected windfarms in his own neck of the woods.
Regarding oil – Dano – Not all energy plants are coal driven. Oil is also used to create energy and electricity – not just gasoline and other petroleum based products. The plants here in my area are hybrid oil/coal. As part of my Geology class we toured the local plants. Also, you are wrong with regards to Iran’s energy being created primarily from coal: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/Background.html That is from the Iranian Energy Agency – only 1% of their consumption is from coal. 53% is natural gas and 45% is oil.
Their assertion they need nuclear plants for energy is a ruse.
correction – the Graph is from the Energy Information Agency – my apologies. Anyway – look at the additional information to the left of the graph – Oil – Iran has 3d largest reserves, Natural gas – 2nd largest reserves. Why would they need nuke?
Bobo, the U.S. produces twice as much oil as Iran does. Why do we need the nuclear plants? In order to save oil, so we can power our Ford Excursions?
I’m not against solar I’m against using my taxpayer dollars to support it.
Nuclear plants take up a lot of room and thus are not going to work in an urban area. There are few power plants that would work in an urban area as they require too much room and land is expensive but nice Straw Man there.
And BoBo if you look at what solar costs without taxpayer money it doesn’t make sense unless you want to make a statement.
My point was that nuclear plant accident might actually do wonders to improve some of our nastiest built up areas.
The Mojave Desert is a beautiful and unique ecosystem. I bet you couldn’t say that about Manhattan, or Detroit.
Yea but only after 10,000 years. France gets most of their juice from them and have never had an issue.
French reactors have always been safer than ours and MUCH safer than the Soviet ones.
Our reactors were designed 35-40 years ago and none have been built for 20+ years. Newer is usually safer.
Harrison – you missed my point. Solar energy storage technology is available. However, not at a cost effective manner for large scale – like supplying energy to the grid. That’s why I said I have one on my own home and it is beneficial to individuals to have their homes on solar.
Politicus – okay – you guys need to make up your mind. If you don’t want us to use our oil – even though we are the second largest producer – what are we supposed to use that is cheap, clean, and efficient? That would be nuclear. If we can’t have the nukes – then we need to increase our coal, oil, and natural gas production until the alternative energy sources are more efficient and affordable.
The point with Iran is that they don’t give a shit about “global warming.” They only want nukes to build the weapons – not for energy. You’re gullible if you believe otherwise.
Bobo, the point is that we are going to have to use whatever energy sources that we have at hand, until we find and develop other alternatives. That should be pretty clear. We are not going to shut down our electric generating plants overnight.
We have to have enough enticement (and I think that the carbon tax will be one powerful argument) in order to actually develop these new sources of energy, so they are viable and affordable. Power generating plants are bigger polluters than cars, but cars also have to become cleaner and more efficient.
I think that Iran does “give a shit” about global warming as much as anybody else, but they do not want to be told by countries that already have nuclear plants and weapons what they can and cannot do. Would you?
BoBo, I think if you remove all of the taxpayer support you get for installing solar power it is not cost effective.