Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Can The Farmers and Cap-And-Trade Be Friends?
The Wash Post's Steven Pearlstein lays into the ways in which the ag industry boondoggled cap-and-trade:
Farmers demanded that they be allowed to earn some extra cash by reducing the carbon footprint on their farms and selling these "offsets" to the factories and power plants unlucky enough to be subject to the carbon-cap regime. They want to be paid extra if they change the feedstock to cut down on cow burps and farts. Or if they use the no-till method for planting seeds, which doesn't release the carbon trapped in the soil. Or if they put in devices to trap the methane released from animal poop.
And they demanded to be paid not just if they do these things in the future, but also if they did them last year or the year before. They demanded the payments even if they are already getting a check from the government to do the same things as part of some other conservation program. And perhaps most notably, they demanded that the job of supervising this offset program be shifted from the Environmental Protection Agency, whose focus would actually be ensuring that the reductions are real, to the Department of Agriculture, which sees its mission as preserving, protecting and defending American farm subsidies....
There was also an ethanol boondoggle to protect.
It seems those pesky scientists over at the EPA had done a preliminary analysis showing that if you considered the indirect effects of producing a lot of additional corn-based ethanol -- like the need to make up for the lost food production somewhere else -- then ethanol might not qualify as a carbon-reducing "renewable fuel" under the 2007 energy bill, potentially jeopardizing ethanol's guaranteed market of 15 billion gallons a year. To rectify this gross injustice, Elmer demanded—and won —a five-year moratorium on any final determination while a study is conducted on how the EPA was conducting its study.
Pearlstein notes that even with more sweeteners than a gallon of high-fructose corn syrup dumped into the mix, farm lobbyists were still urging a "no" vote on cap-and-trade because it would still cost farmers a plugged nickel or something. Pearlstein, like Paul Krugman (who declaimed congressmen voting "no" as guilty of planetary treason), is in favor of cap-and-trade. Which strikes me as weird coming from a guy who has just detailed what a load of sweetheart deals and compromises the legislation is larded up with. By every account, this bill is so filled with deals to buy off any possible disagreement that it is simply one more taxpayer-funded giveaway at a time when we can afford as little largess as possible.
Reason.tv called bullshit on ethanol in this memorable video:
Chad|6.29.09 @ 5:22PM|#
Now, if honest members of the right were to support cap and
trade in principle, and work to pass a clean bill, I would give you
guys some credit.
Instead, you oppose cap and trade in any form, forcing all the vote
buying crap to be added in order to get it passed....and then
condemn the crap that is a direct and obvious consequence of your
opposition to the core policy.
Duh.
I call this the "We should kill it because we broke it" argument,
and I find it to be one of the most despicable lines of argument
out there.
I will admit, though, that handling emissions related to farming
are probably one of the toughest types to handle. Emissions due to
fossil fuel use are fairly straightforward, as almost all fossil
fuels pass through a few choke-points and can be readily measured
there. Emissions related to farming are substantial but more
dispersed, and can be challenging to regulate. This should
definitely be placed in the hands of the EPA.
Rich|6.29.09 @ 5:31PM|#
> I will admit, though, that handling emissions related to
farming are probably one of the toughest types to handle.
What, pass up a chance to use my favorite Homer Simpson line?
"That could be *anybody's* pig crap silo!"
Peter|6.29.09 @ 5:38PM|#
Instead, you oppose cap and trade in any form, forcing all
the vote buying crap to be added in order to get it passed....and
then condemn the crap that is a direct and obvious consequence of
your opposition to the core policy.
Methane releasing bullshit!
Democrats "forced all the vote buying crap" to pass the bill
because they couldn't get the majority they needed otherwise. Just
because I hate you and you cut off both your legs to get sympathy
from others doesn't mean that I forced you to cut off your
legs.
If Democrats would have done some of that bipartisan thing they are
always talking about and tried to work with Republicans to come up
with a fair and sensible way to transition into cleaner energy -
such as making it market-viable first...just a thought - then they
wouldn't have had to buy votes.
John Thacker|6.29.09 @ 5:54PM|#
I call this the "We should kill it because we broke it" argument, and I find it to be one of the most despicable lines of argument out there.
Then I suppose Chad has never criticized GWB's spending, or the
energy bills, or the farm bills, or the highway spending, or riders
on free-trade agreements, or any of the host of nasty legislation
where compromise (and Democratic opposition) resulted in worse
bills?
You can't get a majority easily on Capitol Hill to do exactly what
you what. But President Obama didn't fight for anything with
cap-and-trade; he didn't push against this, he didn't push on
auctioning off credits, nothing. He completely abdicated
responsibility in this bill. He's the President, he could have
fought for something, he could have used his popularity with the
American people to get a better bill.
He's as bad as GWB when it comes to refusing to challenge his party
in Congress.
|6.29.09 @ 6:16PM|#
Peter Said:
"If Democrats would have done some of that bipartisan thing
they are always talking about and tried to work with Republicans to
come up with a fair and sensible way to transition into cleaner
energy - such as making it market-viable first...just a thought -
then they wouldn't have had to buy votes."
Pete,
The irony here is that the rightwing Republicans insisted on the
Cap and Trade mechanism back in the 90's. And then betrayed it when
it was accepted, and continue to distance themselves from any
market based system for managing emissions.
John,
Obama is trying to avoid the error of the Clintons of forcing a
premade bill down the throats of congress. That method doesn't
work. It's better this way.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 6:23PM|#
Peter | June 29, 2009, 5:38pm | #
If Democrats would have done some of that bipartisan thing they are
always talking about and tried to work with Republicans to come up
with a fair and sensible way to transition into cleaner energy -
such as making it market-viable first...just a thought - then they
wouldn't have had to buy votes.
Peter, the problem is that by "market viable" you probably mean
"incurs no costs on anyone, anywhere, anytime". This is direct
contradiction to the whole point of the bill, which is precisely to
increase the costs of anything that emits carbon.
The reality is that this bill will cost something.
ellipsis|6.29.09 @ 6:26PM|#
Wait, wut??
Animal manure and flatulence are subject to the cap and trade
proposal? So in addition to energy prices going up, food prices go
up too?
Holy hell, this is the biggest boondoggle I've ever seen. The
details keep getting worse.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 6:27PM|#
Peter | June 29, 2009, 5:38pm | #
Instead, you oppose cap and trade in any form, forcing all the vote
buying crap to be added in order to get it passed....and then
condemn the crap that is a direct and obvious consequence of your
opposition to the core policy.
Methane releasing bullshit!
Democrats "forced all the vote buying crap" to pass the bill
because they couldn't get the majority they needed otherwise. Just
because I hate you and you cut off both your legs to get sympathy
from others doesn't mean that I forced you to cut off your
legs.
You mean centrist Democrats in very purple areas who are afraid of
losing to Republicans.
On this issue, the middle and far left, along with (strangely
enough) a few members on the far right, are correct. It is the
middle and Republicans who are mucking it up with pork.
If a respectable minority of Republicans were to put together a
CLEAN cap and trade proposal, we might listen to you. But they
don't.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 6:28PM|#
ellipsis | June 29, 2009, 6:26pm | #
Wait, wut??
Animal manure and flatulence are subject to the cap and trade
proposal? So in addition to energy prices going up, food prices go
up too?
Holy hell, this is the biggest boondoggle I've ever seen. The
details keep getting worse.
Of course food prices will go up. They are laden with fossil fuels
from day one. Get used to eating a lot less meat.
John Thacker|6.29.09 @ 6:28PM|#
The irony here is that the rightwing Republicans insisted on the Cap and Trade mechanism back in the 90's. And then betrayed it when it was accepted, and continue to distance themselves from any market based system for managing emissions.
However, one should note that the Cap and Trade you're talking
about was for NOx and SOx emissions, where it has worked well. But
there is a profound difference; the harmful effects of SOx and NOx
are not only relatively quick, but are limited mostly to our own
country. The problem with CO2 emissions is that any negative
effects are global. If we restrict SOx and NOx, then we still get
no acid rain and cleaner skies even if industry moves to China.
With CO2, if we unilaterally act, then if industry moves to China
and India the planet is just as bad off.
A consumer tax makes more sense than a producer tax (like
Cap-and-Trade) for CO2. Cap and trade makes sense for SOX and NOX,
before of issues of measurement, and since we're mostly regulating
things like electrical power that we don't import anyway.
Obama is trying to avoid the error of the Clintons of forcing a premade bill down the throats of congress. That method doesn't work. It's better this way.
I don't know, I think that the resultant bill was worse than the
status quo. In what way is it "better," except from the
perspective that you want to pass something, no matter what it
is?
ellipsis|6.29.09 @ 6:40PM|#
Of course food prices will go up. They are laden with fossil fuels from day one. Get used to eating a lot less meat.
Ok, you know how I know you're just trolling?
John Thacker|6.29.09 @ 6:41PM|#
The reality is that this bill will cost something.
Well, maybe. The Democrats are now lauding the fact that, according
to the CBO, it won't cost much at all until 2020. That's because
the standards get way tighter after then, though. It isn't
projected to do much (except create a big horse-trading,
rent-seeking bureaucracy) until after 2020, the big reductions are
later. Do we think that this promise of virtue later is really
going to happen? Or will it be relaxed before the pain hits, like
in Europe?
If a respectable minority of Republicans were to put together a CLEAN cap and trade proposal, we might listen to you. But they don't.
Did even a "respectable" number of Democrats support a CLEAN
proposal? Did Europe?
Invisible Finger|6.29.09 @ 6:44PM|#
This is direct contradiction to the whole point of the bill,
which is precisely to increase the costs of anything that emits
carbon.
If the goal is to increase the costs of fossil fuel, the obvious
way is to STOP SUBSIDIZING THE PRICE of fossil fuel.
Name a state that isn't setting consumer's rates for electricity.
All the rest of them are setting the price artificially low - to
stick it those goddamned utility companies that have consumers by
the balls - and now empty-skulled jerk-offs like Chad are actually
complaining that the prices are too low.
BeesInTheBrain|6.29.09 @ 6:52PM|#
Instead, you oppose cap and trade in any form, forcing all
the vote buying crap to be added in order to get it
passed.
Do you beat your wife with that logic?
|6.29.09 @ 6:55PM|#
I give you credit, Chad, for admitting that any bill that
actually restricts emissions would have costs. Too bad that
Democrats, including President Obama, have generally refused to
admit that. Yes, the American people deserve a share of the blame
for wanting action against global warming without having any pain
(and free ponies for everyone), but having pandered their way into
office and the majority by promising free rides without tradeoffs
(and on health insurance as well), the Democrats deserve
opprobrium.
When you have office and the majority, you have the responsibility.
Whining about the minority party doesn't cut it. Republicans
deserve blame for what they did when they were in charge, even if
Democrats were obstructionist.
Democrats and President Obama promised action on climate change
coupled with no economic pain. That's impossible. What we got is
corporate welfare with the vast majority of the emissions cuts and
economic pain postponed until after 2020.
Obama won by a significant margin. Perhaps he could have spent some
of that time telling the truth (as McCain did about health
insurance taxation) instead of promising free lunches.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 7:11PM|#
Invisible Finger | June 29, 2009, 6:44pm | #
If the goal is to increase the costs of fossil fuel, the obvious
way is to STOP SUBSIDIZING THE PRICE of fossil fuel.
That's what the bill does. It is a method for charging CO2 emitters
for the right to use other peoples' property as a dumping grounds
for their CO2. Hence, this subsidy will be ended.
|6.29.09 @ 7:11PM|#
Now, if honest members of the right were to support cap and trade in principle, and work to pass a clean bill, I would give you guys some credit. [italics added]
You really don't get it, do you Chad? Let me explain. Libertarians
are not found in the red-blue spectrum. They do not reside on the
left-right line. If you had the reading comprehension skills of an
average sixth grader you would heve discerned that long ago.
We despise both major parties because they are each 50%
anti-freedom.
I will now return you to your regularly scheduled Obama
mockfest.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 7:12PM|#
Russ 2000 | June 29, 2009, 6:48pm | #
Look out, Chad's having another temper tantrum!
Naah, I only do this because it is fun to play with you guys. I try
to limit the time I spend preaching with the choir.
Chad|6.29.09 @ 7:14PM|#
J sub D | June 29, 2009, 7:11pm | #
You really don't get it, do you Chad? Let me explain. Libertarians
are not found in the red-blue spectrum. They do not reside on the
left-right line.
Agreed. Libertarians are an odd sort of far right / far left mix.
On this issue, you are far right, which is why you get lumped with
them with respect to this discussion. Your quest for logical
consistency leads you to lie with some awfully strange
bedfellows.
|6.29.09 @ 7:20PM|#
John Wrote:
However, one should note that the Cap and Trade you're talking
about was for NOx and SOx emissions, where it has worked
well.
Mmmno. My recollection was that the CO2 cap and trade provisions of
the Kyoto Treaty were introduced at the insistence of the U.S. to
get the conservative U.S. Senators on board for ratification.
Instead they balked when it came time to do so.
" I think that the resultant bill was worse than the status
quo. In what way is it "better," except from the perspective that
you want to pass something, no matter what it is?"
The Status Quo is waiting to see what the EPA will do. Who in turn
is waiting to see what Congress will do.
If congress effectively chooses to do nothing, It is an easy bet
the EPA will do what it thinks is best...which is alot more than
the Bush admin would let them.
BUT... EPA action will be frought with massive lawsuits and such
fights. A clear congressionally created regulation is better than
that, no matter if Cap and Trade is not as good a Carbon Tax.
Personally I like Cap and Trade because it allows for innovative
revenue streams not possible with a Carbon Tax.
|6.29.09 @ 7:28PM|#
Dude, this bill will kill 2 million jobs and wont see any real
economic growth for another 10 or 20 yrs. They have set aside funds
for unemployment because they know their will be a mass exodus of
unemployed workers.
This bill enlarges the goverment significantly. Half a million jobs
are lost every month and the private sector gets smaller and
smaller and the economy get worse and worse. Whatever few private
sector co. are left will be taxed to the hilt to cover the growing
goverment. Democrats are commiting political suicide. Im a mexican
and takes this from a "wise latino". lol! .....Go ahead pass the
bill and republicans will hang it over your heads for years.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 7:34PM|#
That's what the bill does. It is a method for charging CO2 emitters for the right to use other peoples' property as a dumping grounds for their CO2. Hence, this subsidy will be ended.
So are you being charged for breathing out?
What property are people dumping CO2 onto, Chad? Is the atmosphere
your property or something?
Please don't couch this in terms of property rights, because you're
completely off the reservation in that area. The tort system
already deals with actual trespasses to people's property
by chemicals and other actually harmful agents. By your
logic, my tree is being polluted by you every time you breathe out.
Good golly.
|6.29.09 @ 7:42PM|#
Mex-Am,
Could you please back up your claim. Thanks.
Neither FactCheck nor PolitiFact cover that angle (not obviously
anyway):
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jun/25/your-guide-cap-and-trade/
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/cap-and-trade_cost_inflation.html
|6.29.09 @ 7:44PM|#
"So are you being charged for breathing out? "
the issue is with Fossil Carbon being dumped to the Atmosphere, not
with breathing.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 7:54PM|#
O RLY? I believe the concern is with CO2, is it not? I've never heard any differentiation.
|6.29.09 @ 8:04PM|#
"O RLY? I believe the concern is with CO2, is it not? I've never
heard any differentiation."
Now you have.
ellipsis|6.29.09 @ 8:23PM|#
I dunno, Chad's kind of over the top, even for joe. I'm voting he's a Reason staff-member playing to the cheap seats for more comment generation.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 8:33PM|#
Sam-Hec - setting that aside, this still has nothing to do with Chad's original contention that this is somehow closing a nonexistent subsidy to pollute that currently exists. It isn't about that at all.
|6.29.09 @ 8:48PM|#
It was a defacto subsidy as the economic services of the natural
world were not being taken into account.
In theory...now the cap-n-trade bill will take those climate
services into account.
Separately, for over a century, fossil fuels had more direct and
obvious subsidies and other market protections from the our
governments. Which have only served to make the problem worse.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 8:51PM|#
there exists no such thing as a "de facto" subsidy. Is it one or not? And what does "the economic services of the natural world" even mean?
dfd|6.29.09 @ 8:59PM|#
We despise both major parties because they are each 50%
anti-freedom.
Only 50%!? Damn, I want whatever JsubD's smoking (or are you on
some kind of happy-pills?) today because that's some good
stuff!
|6.29.09 @ 9:24PM|#
"there exists no such thing as a "de facto" subsidy. Is it
one or not? And what does "the economic services of the natural
world" even mean?"
Allegedly, at least 33 trillion dollars. That means the 'de facto'
value of air to breath, water to drink and for crops, pollinated
plants, a stable(ish) climate, etc. Try providing that for your
family just out of your own earnings, and no help from Mom. Looking
at the ISS, those things aren't cheap.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 9:47PM|#
oh, I didn't know that somehow, AGW and a cap-and-trade were
going to provide clean water and air. I thought it was about global
warming.
Which is it, Sam-Hec? Look, dude, no one here has a huge problem
with fixing identifiable problems like acid raid and the like, but
you're not making any sense.
Michael Ejercito|6.29.09 @ 9:48PM|#
This is direct contradiction to the whole point of the bill, which is precisely to increase the costs of anything that emits carbon.
Which will raise energy prices.
Michael Ejercito|6.29.09 @ 9:52PM|#
Allegedly, at least 33 trillion dollars.
An allegation that has not been proven.
Democrats and President Obama promised action on climate change coupled with no economic pain. That's impossible.
Actually, it is possible.
Read about the TTAPS study. Also look up
The Cold and the Dark: The World After Nuclear War
|6.29.09 @ 10:09PM|#
"oh, I didn't know that somehow, AGW and a cap-and-trade
were going to provide clean water and air. I thought it was about
global warming."
You asked, "And what does "the economic services of the natural
world" even mean?"" So I answered.
Cap and Trade isn't going to provide clean water and air (not it's
job); but in the subset of Natural services, it is a good beginning
at taking into account the Natural Service/economic value of a
Stable Comfortable Climate.
|6.29.09 @ 10:16PM|#
"An allegation that has not been proven."
Obsessions with PROOF will get you nowhere in life (unless you are
a mathemtician). The $ figure is an Estimate.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071205131149.htm
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 10:34PM|#
so, I'm still waiting for that subsidy number. saying that "allowing CO2 emissions" is a subsidy is akin to saying that "allowing fucking" is a subsidy for children.
|6.29.09 @ 10:48PM|#
That subsidy number (assuming the 19th global climate was the
Ideal; wrongheaded I know, but it was still pretty good compared to
Ice ages and transitional climates), is the cost of sequestering
all fossil carbon ever released from the smokestack/tailpipe. I've
no idea what the exact number is.
Note that at some point in time, e.g. Little Ice age, some added
radiative conservation from CO2 would have been welcome.
MJ|6.29.09 @ 10:54PM|#
"It is the middle and Republicans who are mucking it up with
pork."
The middle always mucks things up with pork, it's part of the
definition of "middle". It is a direct consequence of being weakly
influenced by ideology and principle, the Representative who has no
clear idea of what he's doing and why is going to be the first to
put his vote up for sale when the outcome seems close.
The reason that "cap and trade" is close is that enough in Congress
are aware how economically destructive this thing is. Not just in
the direct costs but the indirect costs of dealing with a
bureaucracy that has a massive mandate to interfere with just about
everthing you do economically. "Cap and Trade" is a pure example of
the type of law that enables what Rand called the "economics of
pull", there will be massive corruption if this thing actually gets
enacted as companies try to use influence to mitigate the more
onerous aspects of the law.
MJ|6.29.09 @ 11:00PM|#
"the issue is with Fossil Carbon being dumped to the Atmosphere,
not with breathing."
If the bill includes provisions for charging farmers for livestock
flatulence, then the issue is not merely Fossil Carbon.
MJ|6.29.09 @ 11:12PM|#
"In theory...now the cap-n-trade bill will take those climate
services into account."
No, they won't. The costs imposed by cap and trade will have no
relation, directly or indirectly, with whatever costs CO2 imposes
on the enviroment, the connection only exists in the minds of cap
and trade's supporters, as they do not know what the real cost
is.
|6.29.09 @ 11:58PM|#
"If the bill includes provisions for charging farmers for
livestock flatulence, then the issue is not merely Fossil
Carbon."
I was speaking generally, and even then conventional agriculture is
highly dependent on fossil fuels directly and indirectly.
Separately managing the climate deals with tradable "CO2
equivalent" credits.
Also IIRC the flatulence provision was dropped due to
lobbying.
"No, they won't."
As it stands, you are correct; this bill mostly just advances
efficiency, and not much else. But, this is still necessary
groundwork for getting to the point where that relation is
reached.
Once we get to that relation, we are that much closer to being a
Level 1 Civilization (Kardashev scale) ;) That's my angle betw,
screw Gaia.
|6.30.09 @ 12:31AM|#
er...
'Separately, the management of the climate deals with...'
I typed too fast.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.30.09 @ 3:08AM|#
If the cost of killing cap and trade is all the farm subsidies we've paid out, then I for one say it was a good deal. It's the way-cheaper option.
|6.30.09 @ 10:27AM|#
But that won't happen. The Farm subsidies go through the Farm
Bill, not this one.
I'd love to kill farm subsidies too, as it impedes our ability to
adapt to the coming climate chaos we have committed to
already.
Basically, we have to get farmers to fight the farm bills.
|6.30.09 @ 11:04AM|#
But that won't happen. The Farm subsidies go through the Farm Bill, not this one.
Well, the main farm subsidies. The ethanol farm subsidies go
through this bill, and energy bills. And note that this bill has
large parts its farm offsets and credits administered through the
USDA.
Basically, we have to get farmers to fight the farm bills.
Not enough Dick Lugars for that. What you need is for urban
Democrats to stop voting for the farm bills, as they did on the
last one (overriding GWB's veto), in exchange for pitiful increases
in food stamps that are only necessary because the farm subsidies
(by being price supports) increase the price of food.
|6.30.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Actually, it is possible.
Fine. I'll say that anything that government can do to mitigate
climate change that the market wouldn't do already involves
economic pain. Obviously, yes, the market has incentives to
conserve, as any look at the data will show you. Going beyond that
involves economic pain in the vast majority of cases, by raising
prices in order to reallocate resources into something else besides
existing energy sources. Yes, there's some theoretical market
failure in the case of research, but government-sponsored research
suffers from massive inefficiency as well. Tends to pick winners in
a bad way, like ethanol.
Read about the TTAPS study. Also look up The Cold and the Dark: The World After Nuclear War
What, inducing nuclear winter by having a nuclear war wouldn't
involve economic pain? I suppose this is more a general
geoengineering plea, though.
|6.30.09 @ 11:19AM|#
That subsidy number (assuming the 19th global climate was the Ideal; wrongheaded I know, but it was still pretty good compared to Ice ages and transitional climates), is the cost of sequestering all fossil carbon ever released from the smokestack/tailpipe. I've no idea what the exact number is.
That's not a subsidy. That's not even an externality, where we
would measure any negative and positive effects of releasing that
CO2 that aren't properly accounted for by those releasing it.
(There are some positive, since growing seasons lengthen in Russia,
Canada, the northern US.)
That's the cost of undoing a decision once you've done it and
restoring things to the status quo ante, or the cost of
mitigating the externality. But if the cost of mitigating the
externality is greater than the costs of the externality, you
shouldn't mitigate. And if the positive benefits of emitting CO2 is
greater than the minimum of the net externality costs or the cost
of mitigation, you should emit.
|6.30.09 @ 11:21AM|#
Personally I like Cap and Trade because it allows for innovative revenue streams not possible with a Carbon Tax.
This is as retarded as saying that you like a really complicated
tax code because it creates jobs for accountants. Please stop
committing the Broken Window Fallacy.
|6.30.09 @ 11:26AM|#
My recollection was that the CO2 cap and trade provisions of the Kyoto Treaty were introduced at the insistence of the U.S. to get the conservative U.S. Senators on board for ratification. Instead they balked when it came time to do so.
"The conservative US Senators?" Hell, it failed to get any
US Senators on board for ratification.
Claiming that because Al Gore (who led the negotiations) insisted
on Cap and Trade because he thought it would get conservative
Senators on board when the treaty he negotiated failed to get any
Senators on board is a hell of a lot different from saying that
"rightwing Repbulicans insisted" on such a provision. Especially
since moderates and liberals all voted against Kyoto as well.
That's why I thought you were referring to the Cap and Trade for
SOx and NOx, which were introduced by the Bush pere
Administration over the loud complaints by the Left, and cheered by
conservatives as superior to command-and-control.
Michael Ejercito|6.30.09 @ 1:23PM|#
What, inducing nuclear winter by having a nuclear war wouldn't involve economic pain? I suppose this is more a general geoengineering plea, though.
Detonating the weapons at testing sites will suffice.
|6.30.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Detonating the weapons at testing sites will suffice.
Still not without some economic pain (the cost of producing and
using the weapons), although I guess we have extras, so we've
already spent the money to develop the weapons, and they have to be
maintained.
It's not costless.
Michael Ejercito|7.1.09 @ 12:21PM|#
Still not without some economic pain (the cost of producing and using the weapons), although I guess we have extras, so we've already spent the money to develop the weapons, and they have to be maintained.
The cost is far less than cap-and-trade.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245