Save the planet; Stop cap and trade

[brenthutch 388]

Without China and India signing on, the cap and trade bill would not only do nothing to help lower co2, it would make matters much worse. (if you believe in agw)
It would push heavy manufacturing (and jobs) overseas to countries that are much less efficient at producing a given amounts of goods for a given amount of carbon. You see the correct way to look at a nations carbon output is not co2 per capita, like the UN would like you to believe, but rather co2 per unit produced.
Driving the US out of the carbon market would result in a corresponding increase in the world supply. The increased supply would drive DOWN prices making carbon an even more attractive alternative for the developing work. This would greatly INCREASE co2 production.

[StreetScooby 5]

Interesting line of thinking. Sounds plausible.

We are all engines of karma

[livendive 8]

This won't be the first pollutant to be restricted, so to what extent did this effect happen with PCBs and CFCs?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[brenthutch 388]

Dupont made a lot of money, selling us the new stuff.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Dupont made a lot of money, selling us the new stuff.

Wall Street stands to make a lot of money, organizing a whole new commodity (carbon credits) to trade.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[brenthutch 388]

That is why cap and trade is not an environmental solution, it is a transfer of wealth. The economics of it are so self evident, that it is staggering that it has not been exposed more widely.

[TomAiello 25]

The original point (that it will transfer production to countries without it, bankrupting the relative clean industries and increasing the production of the relatively dirty ones--not to mention the transport costs) is very valid as well.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rhys 0]

Quote

It would push heavy manufacturing (and jobs) overseas to countries that are much less efficient at producing a given amounts of goods for a given amount of carbon. You see the correct way to look at a nations carbon output is not co2 per capita, like the UN would like you to believe, but rather co2 per unit produced.

I'm with you there.

As much as I am the Hippie type that would like to see the carbon thing dealt with. But if India, China and any other country that has substandard emissions values does not participate, then we are in for big trouble, if it does go through!

There needs to be some sort of solution that benifits everyone, but with human beings, that seems almost impossible.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[brenthutch 388]

Sorry, I got sidetracked. Lets stick to the inital point.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

As much as I am the Hippie type that would like to see the carbon thing dealt with, but if India, China and any other country that has substandard emissions values does not participate, then we are in for big trouble, if it goes through!

There needs to be some sort of solution that benifits everyone but with human beings that seems almost impossible.

Simple. We nuke them, reducing their industry to rubble and also greatly reducing their human carbon footprint. It's genius, really.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,467]

I heard the same rationales for the CARB (and then EPA) emissions requirements, the CAFE limitations and then the CFC limitations; these rationales were pushed primarily by the (surprise!) CFC and car manufacturers. All turned out to be scare tactics with no basis in reality. CFC limits DID decrease CFC emissions and stopped the degradation of the ozone layer. CAFE limits did increase fuel economy and did not require us to all drive Yugos. Emissions requirements made the air in LA cleaner and did not drive the price of a car up into the millions.

Today we have the coal and oil companies very, very scared. They are spending millions on scare tactics to prevent the passage of a law that will cost them a lot of money, and that alone is strong evidence that it will work.

So the question is - will we learn history's lessons, or will the tactics of fear win out?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Today we have the coal and oil companies very, very scared. They are spending millions on scare tactics to prevent the passage of a law that will cost them a lot of money, and that alone is strong evidence that it will work.

Actually, it's strong evidence that they think they will lose money if it passes.

It has no relevance to the efficacy of the legislation in achieving it's goals.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[brenthutch 388]

I agree that there will be winners and loosers, but the net effect on CO2 will be nonexistant at best. See my original post and look at what India told Clinton last week. And the other comparisons you mention have little to nothing in common with CO2. (the developing world was not using CFCs and reducing them did not have a negitive impact on there development)
We can cut to zero and the rest of the world will pick up the slack with interest.
I dont like burning coal, not for co2 but for other environmental impacts. Take a look at east central PA if you want to see what I mean. But that said we must look at the other agendas at play. If we wanted to reduce world wide co2 we would close every third world coal fired plant and move that production to the us where we could produce the same product with less impact on the worlds co2 levels.

[Butters 0]

Quote

I heard the same rationales for the CARB (and then EPA) emissions requirements, the CAFE limitations and then the CFC limitations; these rationales were pushed primarily by the (surprise!) CFC and car manufacturers. All turned out to be scare tactics with no basis in reality. CFC limits DID decrease CFC emissions and stopped the degradation of the ozone layer. CAFE limits did increase fuel economy and did not require us to all drive Yugos. Emissions requirements made the air in LA cleaner and did not drive the price of a car up into the millions.

You examples aren't good examples. Why? Because we're not talking about changing products. We're talking about shifting manufacturing from an area with better technology (which produces less pollution per product) to an area with worse technology (which produces more pollution per product).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

I heard the same rationales for the CARB (and then EPA) emissions requirements, the CAFE limitations and then the CFC limitations; these rationales were pushed primarily by the (surprise!) CFC and car manufacturers. All turned out to be scare tactics with no basis in reality. CFC limits DID decrease CFC emissions and stopped the degradation of the ozone layer. CAFE limits did increase fuel economy and did not require us to all drive Yugos. Emissions requirements made the air in LA cleaner and did not drive the price of a car up into the millions.

You examples aren't good examples. Why? Because we're not talking about changing products. We're talking about shifting manufacturing from an area with better technology (which produces less pollution per product) to an area with worse technology (which produces more pollution per product).

maybe so, but at least it'll help our econ...o...mee....er

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Quote

I heard the same rationales for the CARB (and then EPA) emissions requirements, the CAFE limitations and then the CFC limitations; these rationales were pushed primarily by the (surprise!) CFC and car manufacturers. All turned out to be scare tactics with no basis in reality. CFC limits DID decrease CFC emissions and stopped the degradation of the ozone layer. CAFE limits did increase fuel economy and did not require us to all drive Yugos. Emissions requirements made the air in LA cleaner and did not drive the price of a car up into the millions.

You examples aren't good examples. Why? Because we're not talking about changing products. We're talking about shifting manufacturing from an area with better technology (which produces less pollution per product) to an area with worse technology (which produces more pollution per product).

Too late, we already moved manufacturing offshore.

Now, if you think we can export power production and transportation to the Orient, you may have a point. For myself, I don't see how to commute from home to work in the USA and have the pollution end up in China.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

We have moved labor intensive manufacturing JOBS overseas, we still have some manufacturing base still here in the states. If we loose that to cap'n'trade,, god help us all.

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

We have moved labor intensive manufacturing JOBS overseas, we still have some manufacturing base still here in the states. If we loose that to cap'n'trade,, god help us all.

Cap'n'trade has nothing to do with it. Corporate greed has everything to do with it as history shows.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

Ooooow Corperate greed? What are you a cartoon? Come on dude, read a book.

[brenthutch 388]

Quote

Ooooow Corperate greed? What are you a cartoon? Come on dude, read a book.

And yes I should read a dictionary

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Ooooow Corperate greed? What are you a cartoon? Come on dude, read a book.

You should try reading a history book. We have already lost much of our manufacturing, continue to do so, and cap'n'trade had absolutely nothing to do with it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

You should try reading an economics book. History tells us what happend, economics tells us why:
Corperations are just moving to where they can make the most profit for their share holders. If they can make more money in Asia because of labor/tax/regulatory cost in the US they will, and if they can make more money by poluting massivly in Asia rather than a little in the US they will. It is what they do.

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

You should try reading an economics book. History tells us what happend, economics tells us why:
Corperations are just moving to where they can make the most profit for their share holders. If they can make more money in Asia because of labor/tax/regulatory cost in the US they will, and if they can make more money by poluting massivly in Asia rather than a little in the US they will. It is what they do.

Tell us again how electric power production for the US is going to go to Chiina as a result of capntrade. Tell us again how our SUV exhaust is going to finish up in China as a result of capntrade.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

You should try reading an economics book. History tells us what happend, economics tells us why:
Corperations are just moving to where they can make the most profit for their share holders. If they can make more money in Asia because of labor/tax/regulatory cost in the US they will, and if they can make more money by poluting massivly in Asia rather than a little in the US they will. It is what they do.

I enjoy strawmen argument John Lott, ahhh or it is John Kallend, (I cant tell anymore) make like the one following your post I quote here.

He does not understand that much of the manufacturing was DRIVEN out of this country with draconial regulation, that, in some cases, include environmental "guides".

Of course the obligatory comments that I want to polute and destroy and the evil profit mongers that are the compaines that provide work for many of us will follow. And of course we all can just smile, shake our heads and walk away from the stupidity of those type comments. But, they will come none the less

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 388]

"Tell us again how our SUV exhaust is going to finish up in China as a result of capntrade. "

You are killing me!! Are you for real? SUV's? ROTFLMAO!!
Quit the bong hits, put down the Ben and Jerrys (owned by evil coperations by the way), take a shower, change your tiedie, put on some fresh pachouli oil, scrape the Kerry/Edwars bumber skicker off of your suberu and go to your local comunity college and take a macro econominics class.