12 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. Spain concluded that for every 1 "green" job created, 2 regular jobs were lost.
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 dumdum on 12.07.09 at 2:43 pm
This is proof that’s it’s a failure and a scam.
"The EU’s carbon trading scheme has increased electricity bills, given a windfall to power companies and failed to cut greenhouse gases, it is claimed."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/6720119.stm
Posted by Derek on 12.07.09 at 2:43 pm
We’ve had cap and trade here in the U.S. on sulfur and benzene for quite some time now.
Posted by imaxkr on 12.07.09 at 2:43 pm
Spain and Australia are currently in the political process of reversing their cap and trade policies because the effects have severely hindered their economies and have lost jobs even though those policies were to create jobs. Sound familiar? The current bill under consideration in the U.S. is even more dramatic than those.
And do not forget about California’s AB32, it has driven utility costs higher, increase the costs of goods and services and pushed tens of thousands of jobs out of state.
Posted by bash on 12.07.09 at 2:43 pm
Cap and trade succeeded in rapidly reducing acid rain-causing pollution in the United States. As part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress and President George H.W. Bush introduced a cap and trade proposal to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2), the major precursor of acid rain.
The program has yielded a compliance rate of over 99 percent, as well as impressive environmental and economic results.
The long-term reduction targets were achieved three years ahead of schedule.
These targets were achieved at a fraction of the predicted cost. On the eve of legislation, the EPA estimated that the program would cost $6 billion annually once it was fully implemented (in 2000 dollars). The Office of Management and Budget has estimated actual costs to be $1.1 to $1.8 billion — less than 30 percent of the forecast.
Cap and trade was designed, tested and proven here in the United States, as a program within the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The success of this program led The Economist magazine to crown it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002).
Posted by Chelfi on 12.07.09 at 2:43 pm
Cap and trade worked right here in the USA to reduce acid rain.
Check it out. Fact.
Posted by threegooofs on 12.07.09 at 2:43 pm
Cap and trade has worked for pollution like sulfur emiissions very well - in fact, it has worked so well that the pollution credits have plummeted in price because technology outstripped what the credits were anticipated to be priced at.
This will potentially cause higher initial energy prices, but eventually, the energy prices may end up FALLING because renewable energy shoudl end up being cheaper than fossil fuels with the right tech advances.
Posted by cowboy_bebop_ed2000 on 12.07.09 at 2:43 pm
I know. Call your senators, because it’s up against them next.
Posted by dpanic27 on 12.07.09 at 2:43 pm
I don’t know what evidence there is that it will work but why do you assume that because something didn’t work somewhere else it won’t work here. Did the Congress just copy and paste the wording from all those "failures" into their bill.
Posted by B.Kevorkian on 12.07.09 at 2:43 pm
Cap & Trade policies are effective at what they do in the basic sense: limit whatever it is being capped. So, Cap & Trade on ‘carbon’ (I assume, actually CO2 & Methane - I doubt people with pencil-sharpeners will have to account for all that graphite they’re adding to landfills) will likely limit carbon emissions. Whether that will have any positive effect is debateable, and whether it’ll have negative economic effects depends on exactly how the program is structured. If it’s sufficiently draconian, it could easily hamper the international competativeness and productivity of many industries.