14 Jul
Has Cap & Trade worked ANYWHERE it has been tried?? What about “green energy”?
Because the U.S. House of Representatives just passed a bill that would basically mandate the use of "green" energy.
BUT, I seem to remember this being EXACTLY what California tried a few years ago………….not working out so well. Spain also tried this………..not working out so well. In fact a recent study concluded that Spain LOST 2.2 regular jobs for every temporary "green" job that was created.
So I’m just curious, other than Barack Obama SAYING this isn’t going to hurt the economy, what EVIDENCE is there that this will work (when every other time it has failed and caused higher energy prices)?
The bill is called The American Clean Energy and Security Act. (aka HR 2454)
Posted by Giachetta *Italian Chick* on 14.07.09 at 3:41 pm
it hasnt even been tested on a national basis. The liberals are stupid for putting our economy at risk when we dont even know if this is going to work.
Posted by Doofus Dems on 14.07.09 at 3:41 pm
Shhh don’t post facts, it upsets the liberals they will get testy with you
Posted by downwithsocialists on 14.07.09 at 3:41 pm
It’s only "green" for Pelosi’s son, Paul Jr and his "alternative energy" company. What scum they are.
Posted by Buddy on 14.07.09 at 3:41 pm
Kyoto Agreement
No it hasn’t worked
Posted by The water boarder on 14.07.09 at 3:41 pm
Of course we will never know if cap & trade works! The goal is to make the temperatures go down!
Posted by Baraq is a terrorist on 14.07.09 at 3:41 pm
Baraq Obama’s stated goal is the complete destruction of the United States by any means possible.
The man is just plain evil. I really and truly believe this.
Posted by Spock (rhp) on 14.07.09 at 3:41 pm
"green energy" — there is no evidence. No one any where has made it price competitive with old fashioned black or nuclear energy. No one.
Further, the last I heard, making it price competitive requires the invention of new technologies using new principles. Despite the assurances of our "Dear Leader", there is no way to predict the invention of new technologies.
[Humanity has been 'predicting' the invention of fusion power for over 50 years now and has, so far, spent well over $100 billion attempting to invent it.]
***
Now, "cap and trade" — as a government policy tool for a way to create an artificial shortage of something and then use the price mechanism to ration the shortage among the people, it’s workable.
What you have to ask is if the artificial shortage needs to be created at all? [And how they propose to prevent inventive humans from evading the caps, or simply ignoring them and filing false reports.]
Carbon dioxide cap? This is a bad joke. all of human activity of all varieties is less than 6% of the earth’s annual creation of carbon dioxide. And the portion that will be affected by this legislation is something like 6% of that … which means a total impact of zero point zero zero three six percent, or 36 parts in 10,000 — not even a drop in the bucket. Zero measurable effect.
Humans are not a major cause of climate change. Naturally occurring variations in the energy output of the Sun are. Earth has had both ice ages and warm spells periodically for the past million or so years and will have similar climatic variations for the next several million [according to current science's best understanding and unless a major cosmic accident occurs [asteroid hits earth directly?] ].
The conceit that we humans are so powerful that we can significantly effect the planet via this means is simply a variety of bloated ego and deserves the same treatment — a large pin applied vigorously at the point of maximum bloat.
Posted by B.Kevorkian on 14.07.09 at 3:41 pm
Yes. Cap & Trade systems work just fine at limitting whatever it is they’re capping. There’s some ‘cheating,’ obviously, but it’s a viable mechanism for limitting a given negative externality.
Whether the thing be Capped is worth capping is another question…