An Economic Ringer?
I am trying to finger out why it would be prudent to utilize a cap-n-trade system to raise money for alternative energy sources. I understand the principle, but not it's logic. How do you burden an industry and then expect to ride its back soaking up expected cash flow. Wouldn't one rather free it up and then ride the successes of the industry allowing it fill gov coffers to fund alternative energy?
Story
- Representative Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the committee, has warned Waxman, "You are about to embark on an episode of putting the entire American economy, which is the world's largest, through an absolute economic wringer." -
And since when is the EPA supposed to play the role of a partisan cheerleader?
- Obama's Environmental Protection Agency said on Tuesday the Democratic bill would protect consumers from big increases in utility bills.-
This quote runs contrary to everything I have heard out of utility companies, even those in favor of a cap n trade system. I feel like this nation has become a monopoly board; and our President is rolling the dice.
Story
- Representative Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the committee, has warned Waxman, "You are about to embark on an episode of putting the entire American economy, which is the world's largest, through an absolute economic wringer." -
And since when is the EPA supposed to play the role of a partisan cheerleader?
- Obama's Environmental Protection Agency said on Tuesday the Democratic bill would protect consumers from big increases in utility bills.-
This quote runs contrary to everything I have heard out of utility companies, even those in favor of a cap n trade system. I feel like this nation has become a monopoly board; and our President is rolling the dice.
Views: 95
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on -
Gingles, also there is the need to incentivize (subsidise) some forms of alternative energy (ie NGV refuelling infrastructure, etc) to assist in the conversion. The money from credit auctions will help fund that plus some research efforts.
-
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on
-
I personally like cap and trade because it will encourage businesses to come up with better and better ways to solve the problem, instead of the administration saying "I have the answers" it allows and promotes the businesses that it impacts to come up with the most cost effective answers (or to buy credits).
-
Permalink Reply by Catfish on
-
It'll encouarge them to raise their cost of goods. I can't wait to pay twice as much for electricty.
-
Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on
-
Cap and Trade will destroy our economy.
-
Permalink Reply by Bacon on
-
I've seen a couple people on here mention that their acreage is in trees and that they expect the cap and trade program to be of benefit. I would assume they are expecting to sell their carbon credit to carbon producers? Has anyone seen any articles that deal with this particular situation? Thanks.
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
Bacon, that is exactly right. There will be the need for projects to generate carbon offsets or credits. The key will be the rules governing such projects as not every project will qualify.
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
One average American would need a large number of trees to offset his personal carbon footprint.
You have to plant new trees as the old ones die.
You can't use the timber for anything else when you're done. You can't make paper or use it in buildings because it will release its carbon when the paper or wood is disposed of. Using it in a building does delay the eventual release, but it will eventually be disposed of and burned or allowed to rot. The only way to actually sequester the carbon would be to do something like make charcoal out of it and bury the charcoal somewhere where it won't be disturbed.
The average household is responsible for around 20 tons per year of carbon emissions. You'd need to store 20 tons of carbon per year to offset their contribution. I'll take a wild guess that the average tree is no more than 50% carbon, so you'd need to process 40 tons of wood per year per family and process it somehow such that the carbon gets sequestered.
-
Permalink Reply by red rider on
-
whenever the dems and repubs agree on anything is when we run for the hills. congress is chasing the money, those that make money should be taxed (according to congress). how much has Exxon (example company) reported 100 million in profits? while gasoline was at almost $4 a gallon last summer? many people thought it wa ssinful, despite the fact that exxon was only making a 10% profit.
it's all about the money, now that the dems are in control, they want a cut of that money.
well, thats the way I see it.
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
Franklin County, Texas
9 members
-
Cass County, TX
120 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Livingston Parish, LA
34 members
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
