Cap and Trade

i just was reading the wikipedia page on cap and trade. some evil bastards came up with the idea of setting an acceptable amount of polution and then allowing companies to buy and sell the rights to create that poulution. and we get to breath the polution and eat it and drink it...for FREE. THANKS

The idea is that pollution is a commodity that has a cost. If someone wants to pollute they must pay for it instead of doing it for free. This cost will be an incentive to install scrubbers, upgrade facilities, or pollute if those costs are too high etc.

You can purchase permits as an individual and elect to throw them in your compost heap if you choose to reduce the total pollution output of the world.

I think cap and trade is a way to suppress the growth of developing countries because 1. they pollute a lot 2. they can afford permits. Which means the only way to curtail emissions is to slow / shut the factory down.

Cap and trade is a rediculously stupid idea for controlling "pollution" and is simply a means to exercise central control. I would think before we decided to cost ourselves trillions of dollars we come to the undeniable conclusion that anthropogenic carbon emissions are actually a danger to continued human existence on the planet. That conclusion is far from being definite at this point in time.

Sooner or later, pollution and cheap, dirty energy cost us trillions as well....

See gulf oil spill.

abe23 said:

Sooner or later, pollution and cheap, dirty energy cost us trillions as well....

See gulf oil spill.

Click to expand...

Ah, but you see, I put "pollution" in quotes because unlike you I have not bought into current ecological furor surrounding anthropogenic gases (primarily CO2) being responsible for "climate change".

Now if you want to talk about pollution, meaning the release of known carcinogens or other pollutants, then you will find me a ready ally for reducing such as much as feasibly possible. But to spend trillions of dollars on reducing CO2 releases without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that anthropogenic CO2 will cause the destruction of human life on Earth ..... well I find that a little silly.

Let's nail the facts down solidly before we decide to change our entire global economy.

It's all about money, always has been and always will be. Why not just set high standards for factories and fine them when they go over it, instead they allow you to buy credits......what a fucking joke. We have some brain dead assholes coming up with these policies, I almost want this country to fail so I don't have to hear from them anymore.

It is not about the money. It is about control. Now money does come into that equation, but the control is what is most important.

You forgot to mention that our electricity bills will be 40% higher, on average. Another job killer for the Democratic party!!

Wall Street has their paws all over this and are giddy like school girls knowing they have something else to bet our tax dollars on. We need something to fix global warming but the last thing we need is too hand another golden egg to Wall Street

Wall Street is why. Its not control but money like you say. By doing it this way the banks wil profit and recycle billions back into our corrupt political system buying campaign ads to work against the taxpayers interests.

What do we do for those that will do anything and spend anything to skew the facts as long as they can in the name of profits? We had proof about smoking and cancer for decades but not until this year did we do much of anything against big tobacco. Why? Cause big tobacco spent big bucks on our politicians to say everything is fine and we need "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that anthropogenic CO2 will cause the destruction of human life on Earth" until we move a finger. Also, lots of other life live on this planet, other then humans that we depend on that needs to be taken into consideration also.

Money isnt everything and there is never a good time for change if you listen to those against change that effects their wallets . Something is wrong when anytime change is wanted from taxpayers and the generic response is always" Change will raise consumer costs,ship jobs overseas and raise taxes". Of course none of that is ever brought up with business friendly or anti consumer regulation, does it?

Ah, so corners are you arguing for cap and trade because maybe something bad might happen if it is not adopted? Strange stance. But to each their own.

At least he didn't lie about it.


[video=youtube;eQsIBtwUh6Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQsIBtwUh6Q[/video]

[video=youtube;_FrE7ndkSwY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FrE7ndkSwY[/video]

Countryfarmer said:

It is not about the money. It is about control. Now money does come into that equation, but the control is what is most important.

Click to expand...

The two are synonymous...duh

fitch303 said:

The two are synonymous...duh

Click to expand...

Exactly; money, or fiat currency, was derived from fractional reserve goldsmithing. The fractional reserve system, being used by goldsmiths to control the wealth of the nation by great concurrence. Creating money when their gold-reserve can't fulfill the demand for money, so they lend out more money at interest in order to sway the balances.

Law; it creates everything which governs, from land, to money, to regulation, to speeding tickets, to enforceable morals. Money; it creates power and, subsequently, poverty. Poverty; its said to be "the mother of crime." Crime; creates the need for Law!

A closed circuit problem that will never self resolve. A reason why the dialectical laid out in Marx's manifesto won't be able to play out the way he had envisioned, mind you he left it pretty open for encouraged growth and placement. Communism isn't what most of the massive public believe it to be, it is in fact the only way for progress because there is no room to assume power! Much like a more recently revisioned 'resource based economy', the perfect egalitarian society.

Of course we will need to solve the exponential growth problem.

Peace

EDIT: The logic behind money, law, property, and usery are all amoral activities. They, when scrutinized under moral law, are divulged as disgusting, perverted rituals rooted in the need for power!

Ugg ... communists. The antithesis to individual sovereignty. No thanks. Take the kool-aid somewhere else.

yeah their trying to create the north american union

Countryfarmer said:

Ugg ... communists. The antithesis to individual sovereignty. No thanks. Take the kool-aid somewhere else.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should educate yourself on something a little more riveting than the fox news at six o'clock. No kool-aid involved, it represents a brand and me being a communist, don't believe in titles.

Sure its the antithesis of the absolute individualism, because lets face it, there is a chance that there is more than just you in the world. But that doesn't mean absolute governance, a simple set of rights would protect all, less the people who befall great unfortunate circumstances(getting murdered), and no major regulation would behest progression toward the truth of reality.

Being so under-enlightened as a society, maybe we should try the working together thing and see where it gets us.

Peace

EDIT: Of course with no entitlable property would result in less murder and theft, property being the only real cause of such acts, and with no official authority, people won't be pressured by individual acts of determinism. Everything is so available we don't need scarcity, which is the prime goal of business(to create scarcity); abundance breeds scarcity!

Maybe you should check into Roosevelt's proposed second bill of rights, which entitles all to the wealth of the land, in a footnote a complete communism.

Educate myself? Lol.

Let me point out to you that every single nation that has made an attempt to switch to communism has destroyed millions of their own population, enslaved the people to the central government, stamped out dissent and generally retarded their nation's development. Absolute governance? That is the definition of communism, from Pol Pot's killing of anyone his communist regime believed to be part of the elite (read educated), to the old USSR's decree that an individual could not even exercise the personal freedom to change their career unless the state approved, and on to China's one-child program. That's not absolute governance?

Communists believe in control. Just they want to be the ones in control. Perhaps you might want to do a little reading about your favorite form of government before you start drinking from Che's cup of sorrow.