Cap and Trade. Good, bad or ugly?

[Hansmeister]

Nonsense.  Actually, disagreement about the impact of CO2 on the climate has only grown, which is why the EPA had to forbid its scientists from challenging the global warming hysteria.  There is no science that supports the global warming theory.

So...it is all a giant conspiracy?

It is a pseudoscience ... just like eugenics was.  There is absolutely no evidence of either correlation or causation between CO2 emmissions and global warming.  Just a lot of people depending on this to be true for their economic and political livelihood, which is why all the "science" in the field has been focused on starting with the conclusion, looking for anything that can be used to support it while ignoring anything that doesn't.  then create models that will support your foregone conclusion and when they fail (as they all have), either excuse them, or design a new model that will prove your foregone conclusion.  And then repeat over and oer again.  None of the comports with the scientific method.  The problem is that we don't know nearly enough about how the climate works to even apply the scientific method effectively to determine anything at all about the changes in the climate (if any).  Indeed, even the global temperature data we have isn't very accurate.

Maybe a new study has been done, but the largest EPA study done during the tobacco debates was unable to conclusively show that second hand smoke caused cancer. The problem isn't that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, it is that in the real world outside of a lab there are too many variables to control.

There is good evidence that temperatures and CO2 levels have been generally increasing together in recent years, there is geological evidence that CO2 levels and global climate are related, and there is a strong scientific model in place.

I think sask is on to something with the big tobacco playbook analysis.

Actually there is no correlation at all between CO2 output and global temperatures, unless you only count the period from 1973-1998 and exlude the time before and after these dates, which is kinda laughable to use as a baseline.

[crazy canuck]

Actually there is no correlation at all between CO2 output and global temperatures, unless you only count the period from 1973-1998 and exlude the time before and after these dates, which is kinda laughable to use as a baseline.

Should we put this on the same pile as your statement that there is no science to support the global warming theory.

[Neil]

Hans is trying to run a psyop on us.

[crazy canuck]

Hans is trying to run a psyop on us.

I hope he is more successful in his day job.

[Neil]

Hans is trying to run a psyop on us.

I hope he is more successful in his day job.

Well, he's got a harder sell here.  We're not a bunch of Afghani tribesmen who he's trying to convince to support America.

[grumbler]

No, they are buying a credit from someone who is representing to them that they have carbon offsets to sell.  This is fundamentally different then a permit scheme where the permit is obtained directly from the government.  In the former case there is no incentive on the seller of the credit to not be fraudulent other then the risk of being caught.  In the latter case we can rely on the bona fides of the government issuing the permit.

The US system works much differently than the Canadian one.  Allowances can only be obtained in the US from the Feds at a quarterly auction (with escalating floor prices).  If a company wants to offer offsets in lieu of allowances, it is up to the company to demontrate that the offsets exist and are effective (as well as being required to demonstrate their permanence or time limits).  In the US, offsets are limited to a national total of 2 billion tons per year.

If Canada allows anyone (who wants to) to issue "credits," I can see why you would object.  But that is a flaw in a silly system, and not an objection to cap and trade per se.

[Neil]

Canada doesn't have any silly system like this at all.  In fact, any kind of carbon restrictions are unconstitutional.

[grumbler]

I don't know if you are differentiating the carbon tax from the cap and trade plan, but they both run into the same problem in this regard.

Correct.  Neither is a prevention to offshoring pollution.  Cap and trade at least has the benefit of directly "taxing" the item whose decreased output is desired: CO2.  A carbon tax downstream doesn't do this, nor does it directly reward reductions in CO2 output.

[grumbler]

it has been done for a few products, butn it's not 100%.
And foreign governments don't need tocooperate, the taxation is done at your borders when the goods cross them.
basically you tax the miles travelled of the finished product, the energy used producing it, the miles travelled of the resources needed to produce the good, the energy needed to refine the resources, the miles travelled... well, you get the point.
this from the assumption that people will still want to buy similar goods meaning that producing them closer to the region where they'll be sold is an incentive (as are using less polluting methods)...
The tax basically has the consumer pay for the pollution he "outsources".
Not a big fan of it myself, but I can see where it could be useful in order to cut down on such frivolities as catching shrimp where I live, flying it over to Morocco to have it peeled and then fly it back here for selling.

I admit that I have no idea how this tax is supposed to cut down on CO2 emissions.  If it forces me to use local products made with electricity from coal-burning plants rather than import them from someplace where they are made using Hydroelectric power, the tax will actually increase CO2 emissions.

[DontSayBanana]

I admit that I have no idea how this tax is supposed to cut down on CO2 emissions.  If it forces me to use local products made with electricity from coal-burning plants rather than import them from someplace where they are made using Hydroelectric power, the tax will actually increase CO2 emissions.

Or there'd be no net change; you'd also have to factor in the carbon consumption of the transportation itself; over a long enough distance, the vehicular emissions would outweigh the greener production method.

[grumbler]

Or there'd be no net change; you'd also have to factor in the carbon consumption of the transportation itself; over a long enough distance, the vehicular emissions would outweigh the greener production method.

That's possible, but transportation is only a small percentage of total CO2 emissions.  Cap and trade attacks the problem directly (though only at the largest scale).  It has the advantage of encouraging actual reductions in emissions.

You could, of course, combine it with a carbon tax on gasoline and diesel, since the carbon output of those are pretty well-known.  I'm not sure how directly linked fuel efficiency is to CO2 emissions, though.

[DontSayBanana]

That's possible, but transportation is only a small percentage of total CO2 emissions.  Cap and trade attacks the problem directly (though only at the largest scale).  It has the advantage of encouraging actual reductions in emissions.

You could, of course, combine it with a carbon tax on gasoline and diesel, since the carbon output of those are pretty well-known.  I'm not sure how directly linked fuel efficiency is to CO2 emissions, though.

The simple thing to do would be to use the odometer and emissions testing during inspection to come up with the rate, and maybe make it a little more palatable by having the vehicle owner pay it up front and then claim a refund on mileage not used with the tax return.

[Monoriu]

Excellent idea, of course.  You guys do this cap and trade thing, while we in Hong Kong continue to enjoy our coal-fired power stations 

[DontSayBanana]

Excellent idea, of course.  You guys do this cap and trade thing, while we in Hong Kong continue to enjoy our coal-fired power stations 

And your non-ventilated apartments. By 2050, you'll have enjoyed your coal-fired power stations and all died of carbon monoxide poisoning.

[Monoriu]

Excellent idea, of course.  You guys do this cap and trade thing, while we in Hong Kong continue to enjoy our coal-fired power stations 

And your non-ventilated apartments. By 2050, you'll have enjoyed your coal-fired power stations and all died of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Winds, my dear, winds.  The benefit (in terms of lower electricity bill and stable supply) is mine.  The pain is spread around the globe.  I see no reason why we should do it :evil: