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?

Answer 1

It is strong, courageous and will stimulate the growth of the US economy in the environmental sector.

As it will for sure eliminate some heavy and underperforming industries, it has the potential to create over 1 million of high qualified jobs in the field of environment and energy.

It will shift some of the expenses for fuel (money transferred to oil and coal producers) to domestic jobs instead.

It will also (as secondary effect) reduce the societal cost of pollution by creating an environmentally efficient economy.

Experience of countries having been aggressive on env. policies: UK, Sweden and Germany...
what happened to them? they export worldwide their unique knowledge in the field and sell valuable competencies to China.

The bill will finally end the political uncertainty for businesses.



BTW: The US emitts around 19t CO2 per capita. A reduction of 80% would reduced this to 3.7 which is very realistic:
30% energy efficiency
30% renewables
30% demand side mitigation
5% international offsets
= 0.7*0.7*0.7*0.95... = 0.2 (it works, 80% are reduced)

Actually, considering the deadline is 2050, I am sure the US with its huge natural potential can do better. But its a good start.

Answer 2

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 3

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 4

I haven't read the specifics of this bill, but I think it's a good one. Reducing emissions is always a goal (or should be). Bush doesn't like the cap and trade method, but I do because it benefits companies that make efforts to clean up their emissions. Consider that company A, which pollutes very little, can sell its excess allowance for money, basically profit for that company. Company B has not changed its ways for some time, it has to buy allowances from other companies. In this way you punish companies for emissions and encourage them to reduce emissions as a matter of economic survival.

Answer 5

Cap? Isn't that missing a letter. I think it needs an "R."

Really, why are we going to impose laws that restrict our productivity when other newly industrialized countries (China) have no intention of following suit?

I believe overtime we will force ourselves to clean up. However, give America time, & don't force it. Government interference is never a good thing for the American economy.

****************************
Sudden realization... Isn't this kinda like that moron that tried to invest in "imaginary" property (like the Golden Gate Bridge) over the internet? What is traded here, how can they track it, & what would the punishments be? Sounds like there's more bureaucratic BS to follow.

Answer 6

It is another idiotic idea whose goal is to destroy the US capitalist system. The whole idea is based on the fraud that is "manmade global warming". The real impact of all these things is to reduce the quality of life in the US and to redistribute our wealth to other nations.

Answer 7

Too little, too late. But something's better than nothing.