gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
gslack, a reasonably effective pollutant exchange affected revenue and investment in pollutant control resulting in the measurable decrease in pollution.
such an exchange is, in my opinion, a superior solution to regulation or taxation alone. while polluters will pollute through a tax measure by way of your "greed serves no master", they are more likely to adopt policies or implement technologies to mitigate pollution given the opportunity to profit from their competitor's inaction on the same.
the idea extends beyond emplacing an exchange stateside to ensnaring participants from more emissive countries. china is our focus, no doubt, as we were the focus of europe and their kyoto cap and trade.
Good points... I do not agree completely but simply because the way the entire thing is set up by the same people pushing the theory itself. If a system were set up which would make them push to be rid of fossil fuel use, and keep speculators, government officials with an inside track, and various other self serving interests out, i would consider it.
But sadly this is not the case and further, I do not see how it could happen today.. The fact is most big oil and coal has already bought into this system. They and the others who got in at the first stages will be basis of this structure. They represent both the biggest money and the largest users of the credits themselves.
If say exxon decides to import less or refine less they will have a bit of spare CO2 emissions to trade. At this same time the lowered amount of oil or gas produced by one of the largest producers on the planet, will force the supply and demand standard of raising the price of oil or gas. So when they do go back to peak efficiency they have a surplus ready to flood the market with. Now those spare CO2 emissions they had? Well they could have traded them on the market for cash or through smart trading could have gotten even more credits from them as supply was decreased, carbon credits on the market would also increase. And again would drop in value. now they have carbon credits to allow them to pump out as much gas and oil as they need to before the prime rate drops again from the flooding of the market.
So say that took place over a year... In that year did they actually decrease emissions or did they just stagger the emissions to a short and long period? Not only do I believe they could have done that, but I also contend they could quite feasibly end up dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere because of careful manipulation of supply of the product (oil), and the market related to effects of that product (cap and trade)...
There is no safe way to regulate a market reliant on the very thing its designed to combat... its just not logical nor is it reasonable to assume so in my opinion...
i understand that oil wants to be taxed flatly. this administration has a talent for coming through with what lobbies request, be it insurers, unions automakers or banx. maybe that will be the ticket with oil in the bill. refining isnt that carbon intensive. i am with my fleet of v8s from the 80s and 90s. my gas f700 burns fuel where refineries distill it, generally.
the carbon from consumers isn't captured for the exchange. it could evade the point even more than you've considered.
i am thinking that if this mechanism is meant to cap and trade pollution, a subjective, but definitive points system could weigh the curve between clean businesses and leading polluters in all respects. respects that include fox's heavy metals, a concern of mine as an offshore angler, sure, CO2, whatever amounts to an environmental threat. then, these points could be traded round.
a bar is still set for illegal dumping and all. illegal would still be illegal, but the consequential pollution from our produce will be moderated by a market-based system.
Even though I do not share your optimism on this whole thing, it is moot because the system has already been chosen. This debate over the coming bill will not be about the methods or manner they plan to implement or use the cap and trade. That has already been set. It follows the system set in place already in various other countries around the world.
Believe me this will be about CO2 and only CO2, or as they call it "carbon", which again is very dubious. later when or if it turns out CO2 is not the problem, they will do the same thing they did when it began to cool instead of warm. it was climate change and BAM! all was new again. The way and means are already set, the biggest core investors with the market setup money are already locked in, offset companies already set up, and all pieces are waiting now. All one need do is take a look at the CCX website and see their list of partners, and investors already.... Make no mistake this is set already.
I am not some kind of conspiracy nut, and I am not an idiot... I have been working in, with and for the government for 21 years. There is no way they will be able nor will they even want to try and make it harder for those in on this to emit CO2. Oil is big money and required for this economy to run, both directly and indirectly. This is not about limiting them, but about curtailing people from developing to another United States...
Carbon credits will allow another way to manipulate oil prices. THis will effect price at the pump. You seem to think it leaves us consumers out for some reason... No I am afraid not. First we will pay more at the pump to cover the losses thats not a belief thats a fact we already do this now... it happens in anything when there is new costs and fees added to a product, the price difference shows in the quantity per or price per unit.
Later we will pay more directly... Why? Because as you just said those things effected right now are not as carbon intensive compared to automobiles and transportation. After a couple years and we get numb to this new cost, we will be rocked with a new discovery that their estimates were wrong and we need to limit CO2 emissions more directly now. And of course many of us will stand up and proclaim its the least we can do for our planet. Then we will get taxed on our own individual CO2 output or "carbon footprint"... And from there it will get uglier.....
You can think I am reading too much into this if you want, but if you look at history you cannot deny there is in the very least some real reason for doubt....
A cap and trade and the taxation on CO2 that comes with is a tax on life make no mistake about it....