Cap and trade won't reduce emissions, will only tax them.

[Midnight Marauder]

They have found a way to tax the air.

Never mind that it won't reduce carbon emissions or help the environment. Clearly that's not the point anymore.

The European model of cap and trade isn't reducing emissions, why would we think ours would?

Michael Wara:

Michael Wara on lessons to be learned from the European cap and trade system - PESD

 

[Mr. H.]

The target, in this country anyway, is hydrocarbons. Reduce the use at any cost. Oil, gas, coal. With it goes jobs, but who cares? Green energy will win out and all will be rosey in Obamaland.

 

[Mr. H.]

The target, in this country anyway, is hydrocarbons. Reduce the use at any cost. Oil, gas, coal. With it goes jobs, but who cares? Green energy will win out and all will be rosey in Obamaland.

 

[The T]

(IMAGE: Courtesy Of EIB )

 

[Screaming Eagle]

For cap and trade to reduce emissions it would have to reduce electrical output, if you reduce electrical output the grid crashes and we have a blackout. It seems they want a world without electricity. I know that's not what they say, but it is the logical conclusion of so many of the things Obama has said.

 

[Mr. H.]

"They" want a world without hydrocarbons.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

For cap and trade to reduce emissions it would have to reduce electrical output, if you reduce electrical output the grid crashes and we have a blackout. It seems they want a world without electricity. I know that's not what they say, but it is the logical conclusion of so many of the things Obama has said.

Cap and trade was never designed or intended to reduce emissions. It's a bait and switch, feel-good con game.

It IS designed and intended to artificially inflate the cost of any utility that uses fossil fuels, in order to make the "alternatives" seem almost economically viable.

 

[uscitizen]

Taxing tobacco will not reduce tobacco consumption only tax it?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Taxing tobacco will not reduce tobacco consumption only tax it?

That might make a great thread. This one is about how cap and trade actually increased emissions in Europe and we have no reason to believe the same thing won't happen here.

I suppose you can tell us all how cap and trade will reduce emissions. I'll wait.

 

[uscitizen]

If energy costs more we tend to use less. Same as with the sin taxes such as tobacco.
It is not rocket science, simple human behaviour.

with that said, I am against cap and chrade.

I go for just limiting emissions or taxing the heck out of them after an adjustment period.

 

[uscitizen]

If cap and chrade passes we will just have a cap and chrade bubble to burst.
It is not hard to see who is really driving cap and chrade.

 

[jillian]

The target, in this country anyway, is hydrocarbons. Reduce the use at any cost. Oil, gas, coal. With it goes jobs, but who cares? Green energy will win out and all will be rosey in Obamaland.

and green technologies won't create jobs? I'm not saying we should be nuts, but we should certainly act responsibly.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

If energy costs more we tend to use less. Same as with the sin taxes such as tobacco.
It is not rocket science, simple human behaviour.

According to the World Health Organization, tobacco use has actually increased. Of course, they have an agenda so I don't take their numbers too seriously.

However, there's NO reason to believe cap and trade will reduce use or emissions, since just the opposite has happened in Europe. What part of that do you not understand? Did you not read the piece linked in the OP?

I go for just limiting emissions or taxing the heck out of them after an adjustment period.


If cap and chrade passes we will just have a cap and chrade bubble to burst.
It is not hard to see who is really driving cap and chrade.

They are literally, taxing the air. And using the money to send to underdeveloped countries to pay down our "carbon debt." So what it really does is, redistribution of wealth on a global scale. A Marxist policy and agenda which has nothing to do with saving the planet and which will not reduce carbon emissions at all. In fact the opposite will happen, as these "underdeveloped countries" start developing and using fossil fuels. Look at China for an example, since they have been the #1 polluter now for two years running.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The target, in this country anyway, is hydrocarbons. Reduce the use at any cost. Oil, gas, coal. With it goes jobs, but who cares? Green energy will win out and all will be rosey in Obamaland.

and green technologies won't create jobs? I'm not saying we should be nuts, but we should certainly act responsibly.

Oil changers for windfarms is a "green job." It's sprouted a little cottage industry. Each turbine requires 4 barrels of oil every six months. Sounds real green doesn't it?

You believe "green jobs" like solar installers and home weatherizing will be new jobs? It'll be all the same home improvement/construction contractors we have now.

Thus far, no one can give us any worthwhile estimate on how many "green jobs" there will be compared to jobs lost. Is it a net gain or a net loss? In Europe it's a net loss thus far.