What do you think of the bill to introduce a carbon cap and trade system in the USA?

Question

The bill calls for the United States to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent by 2050 from electric power plants, manufacturing and transportation.

The legislation was introduced by Republican John Warner and Independent Joe Lieberman.

It would create a "cap-and-trade" system whereby companies would have pollution allowances that they could sell if they went below the emission limits, or buy if they found they could not meet the requirements.

The trading is aimed at reducing the economic impact of putting limits on carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, the leading greenhouse gas.

An amendment by Sanders (I-Vt.) calling for an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 instead of 70 percent was defeated 12-7.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315464,00.html

Climate scientists generally recommend an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050.

So what do you think of this bill? Too aggressive? Not aggressive enough?

c m - LOL! I'm sorry but just comparing the picture of Gore on the 1st page to Inhofe on the 2nd page, I cannot take your link seriously. I almost burst out laughing!

Answer 1

I think it's a good start. At least it involves financial rewards and punishments for emissions. Some of these bills that you hear about that call for the US to have 15% of electricity generated by renewable energy by a certain year don't really force you to back it up. Having these carbon credits will force polluters to be cleaner, and if they don't, then they'll have to pay. It will also reward companies who are cleaner than they need to be.

Answer 2

The cap-and-trade concept apparently worked well after the Acid Rain legislation, signed in the 1980's.

The question is how do we meet this 70% reduction number?

First, I think Jello was right that nuclear power is really being pushed right now. Also, low-emitting IGCC coal plants are being installed. They're being pushed not only due to global warming, but the fact that coal-fired power plants are currently being required to install very expensive air pollution controls to reduce nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Running a coal plant just isn't as cheap as it used to be, because these air pollution controls can cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Second, the development of hybrids has really revolutionized the auto industry. It's concievable that most cars will be built as hybrids by 2050, which emit a fraction of the CO2 that a regular car emits. Also, electric cars will also be more popular in the marketplace by 2050, reducing CO2 emissions even further.

These advances will make a 70% reduction by 2050 not only feasible, but likely.

Answer 3

Definitely not aggressive enough, I think the government is trying to patronize us. The 80% reduction in emissions sounds too good. Is this based on the present emissions level or year 2050 ? If it is based on year 2050 level then its all horse manure because even after the reduction the level of emissions could be 20 times or more than what is emitted at present. This is just a rough estimate, but I am sure Dana could give the accurate figures on the present emission and the projected emission of year 2050.

Answer 4

Just build nuclear power plants. That will cut carbon emissions over 50% as soon as they replace fossil fuel power plants.

People make things so overly complicated.

Answer 5

Follow the money. Here is an explanation of why there is bi-partisan support for a "cap and trade" scam. If anybody that sees this is so secure in their belief of the "great intentions" of the AGW crowd then it shouldn't be a problem for you to read this through. Then you can make up your own mind about it.

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1185475433.pdf

Answer 6

Just another clever way to fleece the people.

Answer 7

Bad idea.