“Cap and Trade.” A mom’s simple definition.

By | October 8, 2008 | Science Policy, Social network science, Uncategorized | 80 Comments

What does Cap and Trade mean? Where do the candidates say they stand on this particular issue and how do their words compare to their voting histories?

Any mom who used bingo chips to barter babysitting hours will understand this analogy immediately. Take a group of three moms. Give each, say 10 bingo chips. One chip = one hour of babysitting. If Dana asks Joanne to watch her boys for two hours, she must give Joanne two chips. Joanne can ask Tania to watch her girls for one hour but she will lose a chip to Tania.
Need more chips? Sacrifice some nights out, offer to watch some kids and rebuild your chip reserve
Of course, there are some differences between the babysitting chip method and the cap and trade system:
1) In general, when political wonks refer to Cap and Trade they are not organizing babysitting schedules. They are most likely talking about an approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.

2) Babysitting chips cannot be bought and sold (despite my numerous attempts to do so). Within a cap and trade system, companies are given a limit–capped–on how much they can pollute the environment. Let’s say they are given a limit of 25. That’s 25 points or credits (or chips) a company can use. They are licensed accordingly. They will not be given more chips by the government. As they start to near their cap, they must buy credits (chips) from other companies who have an excess of credits. This is the “trade” part. Trading money for credits. How would a company have an excess of credits? By lowering their pollution output.  In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

Both candidates are in favor of a Cap and Trade policy. Read on.

This morning–as part of its two-week investigative report comparing the candidates’ answers to 14 Science Debate questions to their voting history–Popular Science takes a look at Climate Change. (Yesterday, the topic was Innovation.) Both candidates agree that global warming poses a serious threat and needs to be tackled immediately with carbon emission reduction. Both candidates want to institute a cap and trade system to make carbon reduction market friendly. But do they have the record to back it up?

In short: the answer is yes. Read the brief, but important, details here.

Tomorrow, PopSci will take a shot at Energy.

Newer Comments →
  • http://www.districtofcolumbiadispatches.blogspot.com Philip H.

    You know, I keep looking at cap and trade a different way. To me, cap and trade is using the bingo chips to cover up the costs of continuing to live your life without any changes to accommodate the new baby. If the goal is really to lower emissions, thus reducing total greenhouse gases, slowing climate change, and increasing the likelihood of an ecologically sustainable economy, then shifting the point of emission, as cap and trade does, won’t get you there. There is no economic incentive for the participants to do anything differently, so long as they can get a “free pass” by buying up the “excess” emissions of others. So I’ll still take a direct carbon tax thanks much – which forces business to place a price on its use – and abuse – of our common atmospheric resources.

  • http://www.districtofcolumbiadispatches.blogspot.com Philip H.

    You know, I keep looking at cap and trade a different way. To me, cap and trade is using the bingo chips to cover up the costs of continuing to live your life without any changes to accommodate the new baby. If the goal is really to lower emissions, thus reducing total greenhouse gases, slowing climate change, and increasing the likelihood of an ecologically sustainable economy, then shifting the point of emission, as cap and trade does, won’t get you there. There is no economic incentive for the participants to do anything differently, so long as they can get a “free pass” by buying up the “excess” emissions of others. So I’ll still take a direct carbon tax thanks much – which forces business to place a price on its use – and abuse – of our common atmospheric resources.

  • Pingback: What are the differences between Corporate Finance, Capital Markets and M&A?

  • http://bartacus.blogspot.com Bart L

    The original concept for cap-and-trade can be traced back to NASA scientists, who were having a difficult sharing precious instrument time on (I believe) the Galileo spacecraft orbiting Jupiter. It’s just another means of divvying up resources with a known, limited quantity.

    The problem, of course, is that we haven’t reached a point where we know how many hydrocarbon reserves exist in toto. More fields and sources keep being found–and more would, if the oil companies were allowed to search for them. The whole point of cap and trade, economically, is to restrict growth and energy use, since the primary energy sources in use today are hydrocarbons.

    That said, there might be other ways to get out of the inherently limited bingo chip game, say by developing alternative energy sources–space solar power or helium-3 fusion or something completely new–or finding ways to sequester carbon. The question then becomes: if industrialized societies manage to develop ways to expand the size of the energy “pot,” what will become of the “chips?” My guess is that the referees of the game would refuse to expand the number of chips. Adding more chips to the game would probably be seen as “cheating.”

    /b

  • http://bartacus.blogspot.com Bart L

    The original concept for cap-and-trade can be traced back to NASA scientists, who were having a difficult sharing precious instrument time on (I believe) the Galileo spacecraft orbiting Jupiter. It’s just another means of divvying up resources with a known, limited quantity.

    The problem, of course, is that we haven’t reached a point where we know how many hydrocarbon reserves exist in toto. More fields and sources keep being found–and more would, if the oil companies were allowed to search for them. The whole point of cap and trade, economically, is to restrict growth and energy use, since the primary energy sources in use today are hydrocarbons.

    That said, there might be other ways to get out of the inherently limited bingo chip game, say by developing alternative energy sources–space solar power or helium-3 fusion or something completely new–or finding ways to sequester carbon. The question then becomes: if industrialized societies manage to develop ways to expand the size of the energy “pot,” what will become of the “chips?” My guess is that the referees of the game would refuse to expand the number of chips. Adding more chips to the game would probably be seen as “cheating.”

    /b

  • Pingback: Emissions Trading Systems: a Webliogr… « A Blog by Kevin Cox

  • Robert

    In all actuality, the planet is cooling. Man cannot destroy this planet. It will do it on it’s own. If you reduce carbon dioxide the trees and plants don’t breathe, therefore we don’t get the oxygen we need. Why “Kool-Aid” drinkers can’t get this through their thick skulls baffles me to no end. People need to educate themselves in other ways than the main media and blogs.

  • Robert

    In all actuality, the planet is cooling. Man cannot destroy this planet. It will do it on it’s own. If you reduce carbon dioxide the trees and plants don’t breathe, therefore we don’t get the oxygen we need. Why “Kool-Aid” drinkers can’t get this through their thick skulls baffles me to no end. People need to educate themselves in other ways than the main media and blogs.

  • Jim

    I like your analogy to the baby sitting chips but would add a caveat. You would purchase your babysitting chips from the government. After that, every time you traded a chip for an hour of babysitting with Joanne, that trade would be facilitated by the government with an appropriate fee being charged. All these fees would come out of your household budget. By the same token, any taxes paid by industry via cap and trade will be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for a new car, fresh fruit or the cost of a hotel room.

  • http://None Jim

    I like your analogy to the baby sitting chips but would add a caveat. You would purchase your babysitting chips from the government. After that, every time you traded a chip for an hour of babysitting with Joanne, that trade would be facilitated by the government with an appropriate fee being charged. All these fees would come out of your household budget. By the same token, any taxes paid by industry via cap and trade will be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for a new car, fresh fruit or the cost of a hotel room.

  • http://www.acw70indiana.com Colorado Pete

    I am an “old toot”, born many years ago. These days I never cease to be amazed at how quickly and readily those of our supposedly educated society accept ideas such as “disastrous global warming”, the theory that has been promoted by Gore, the fellow who invented the internet. Many of these zealots are members of our local, state, and federal government, our leaders who are only too ready to apply their solution to this “problem”. Most of these solutions are based upon $ to solve the problem, usually in the form of a tax, fine, or penalty of some sort. I ask the question: does anyone remember that many years ago, long before my time, much of the northern part of this country was covered by glacier? Yes, as far south as Indiana and Ohio. My point is “global warming’ has been happening for thousands of years, is cyclical, and is part of nature. Yes, I am in favor of reducing pollution, reducing or eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels, etc. but let us apply some common sense (a rare commodity today) to the approach and not get caught up in more $ocial reform ideas.

  • http://www.acw70indiana.com Colorado Pete

    I am an “old toot”, born many years ago. These days I never cease to be amazed at how quickly and readily those of our supposedly educated society accept ideas such as “disastrous global warming”, the theory that has been promoted by Gore, the fellow who invented the internet. Many of these zealots are members of our local, state, and federal government, our leaders who are only too ready to apply their solution to this “problem”. Most of these solutions are based upon $ to solve the problem, usually in the form of a tax, fine, or penalty of some sort. I ask the question: does anyone remember that many years ago, long before my time, much of the northern part of this country was covered by glacier? Yes, as far south as Indiana and Ohio. My point is “global warming’ has been happening for thousands of years, is cyclical, and is part of nature. Yes, I am in favor of reducing pollution, reducing or eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels, etc. but let us apply some common sense (a rare commodity today) to the approach and not get caught up in more $ocial reform ideas.

  • Bea

    Educated, Colorado Pete says. Educated by Weather underground. If you haven’t heard of them, you had better read up on them. If you don’t believe as they do, they will try to “re-educate” you in “re-education centers” (as in Hitler’s Concentration Camps, such as Auschwitz) If you need to run your a/c because you have asthma, then you will be charged so much, you will not be able to buy your medicine. Oh, wait. That will be taken care of with the new Health Care System. BO won’t allow a doctor to treat someone unless it will IMPROVE their health. Oooops, asthmatics won’t improve, their treatments are only for maintenance. As with diabetics, AIDS patients, children with CF, CS, MS, Jerry’s kids, and on and on and on. Oh, wait. I get it. THAT will reduce energy AND medical costs, huh?
    OPEN YOUR EYES FOLKS! WE’VE BEEN OVERTTHROWN AND THE “EDUCATED” WERE TOO STUPID TO DO ANYTHING BUT CELEBRATE!!!! Give me liberty. You know the rest.

  • Bea

    Educated, Colorado Pete says. Educated by Weather underground. If you haven’t heard of them, you had better read up on them. If you don’t believe as they do, they will try to “re-educate” you in “re-education centers” (as in Hitler’s Concentration Camps, such as Auschwitz) If you need to run your a/c because you have asthma, then you will be charged so much, you will not be able to buy your medicine. Oh, wait. That will be taken care of with the new Health Care System. BO won’t allow a doctor to treat someone unless it will IMPROVE their health. Oooops, asthmatics won’t improve, their treatments are only for maintenance. As with diabetics, AIDS patients, children with CF, CS, MS, Jerry’s kids, and on and on and on. Oh, wait. I get it. THAT will reduce energy AND medical costs, huh?
    OPEN YOUR EYES FOLKS! WE’VE BEEN OVERTTHROWN AND THE “EDUCATED” WERE TOO STUPID TO DO ANYTHING BUT CELEBRATE!!!! Give me liberty. You know the rest.

  • Rich

    First, global warming is not proven science, it is far from it. Why is every scientist that has facts or a differing opinion shunned by the media, and blacklisted from science all together. Let’s look at the big picture. I can understand people want to do good for the environment but everyone is missing the big point. Global Warming (now global climate change) is a HUGE BUSINESS!!!! All this equates to is a money making machine. Let me explain the typical american. Go to work, come home read the news and see “Global Warming” everywhere, basically the media has made this a SCIENTIFIC FACT when in reality it is not. No american will do their homework so they go right along with it. If the news says it then it is fact. (channel change to american idol now).
    Why don’t they have a prime time show with scientist on both sides of the aisle to debate this for the common american to see? Think of all the money these scientist get from the government to slant their studies so that the gov. can throw a fat tax on you. Step outside your political party box and look real hard at what is going on people. Do some research, put the big mac and tv remote down and stimulate your brain.

  • Rich

    First, global warming is not proven science, it is far from it. Why is every scientist that has facts or a differing opinion shunned by the media, and blacklisted from science all together. Let’s look at the big picture. I can understand people want to do good for the environment but everyone is missing the big point. Global Warming (now global climate change) is a HUGE BUSINESS!!!! All this equates to is a money making machine. Let me explain the typical american. Go to work, come home read the news and see “Global Warming” everywhere, basically the media has made this a SCIENTIFIC FACT when in reality it is not. No american will do their homework so they go right along with it. If the news says it then it is fact. (channel change to american idol now).
    Why don’t they have a prime time show with scientist on both sides of the aisle to debate this for the common american to see? Think of all the money these scientist get from the government to slant their studies so that the gov. can throw a fat tax on you. Step outside your political party box and look real hard at what is going on people. Do some research, put the big mac and tv remote down and stimulate your brain.

  • Dennis

    Like Robert, why don’t the media talk about plant life requiring carbon dioxide for life and humans needing oxygen for life. This is, in effect, cap and trade. If we create too much carbon dioxide, plant more trees, shrubs, bushes, etc.
    I do however believe that we should reuse, recycle, and reduce. Aluminum should be recycled, as well as steel and other limited resources. As for paper, it is completely self-replenishing, as long as we keep planting trees when we cut them down, As for water, I don’t understand all the hub-bub. The earth is covered with (what) 80% water. In a crisis, we will develop cheap ways to desalinate the water. When the temperature goes up, water evaporates into the atmosphere and comes down as rain somewhere else. Herein lies the dilemma, the Mississippi overflows due to rain or snow, then floods all the bordering states. Meanwhile, the South is suffering one of the worst droughts in history. Why can’t the scientists devise a ‘water grid’ like the power grid. For instance, the excess water along the Mississippi can be piped to the South by simply turning a giant bi-directional valve. After all, we built a pipe line from Pt. Barrow to Valdez, didn’t we?
    Why don’t we try to solve simple problems with common sense? Why does every problem require a “Mission Impossible” contrived solutions?

  • Dennis

    Like Robert, why don’t the media talk about plant life requiring carbon dioxide for life and humans needing oxygen for life. This is, in effect, cap and trade. If we create too much carbon dioxide, plant more trees, shrubs, bushes, etc.
    I do however believe that we should reuse, recycle, and reduce. Aluminum should be recycled, as well as steel and other limited resources. As for paper, it is completely self-replenishing, as long as we keep planting trees when we cut them down, As for water, I don’t understand all the hub-bub. The earth is covered with (what) 80% water. In a crisis, we will develop cheap ways to desalinate the water. When the temperature goes up, water evaporates into the atmosphere and comes down as rain somewhere else. Herein lies the dilemma, the Mississippi overflows due to rain or snow, then floods all the bordering states. Meanwhile, the South is suffering one of the worst droughts in history. Why can’t the scientists devise a ‘water grid’ like the power grid. For instance, the excess water along the Mississippi can be piped to the South by simply turning a giant bi-directional valve. After all, we built a pipe line from Pt. Barrow to Valdez, didn’t we?
    Why don’t we try to solve simple problems with common sense? Why does every problem require a “Mission Impossible” contrived solutions?

  • AZITDad

    I agree that this whole GLOBAL WARMING I mean CLIMATE CHANGE is a sham. I have heard that there over a hundred Climatologists who are opposed to this pop-cultural phenomenon, but can’t get any media time. And I agree that is all about $$$. Obama and the UN are using this to impliment Cap and Trade and that stupid Carbon Tax. Crooks!

    Anyway, this Climate Change thing reminds me of that whole USA for Africa fiasco. Remember that? My High School worked for weeks raising relief money. It wasn’t until later we found out that it all went to waste. Where is my oversized white sweatshirt?

  • AZITDad

    I agree that this whole GLOBAL WARMING I mean CLIMATE CHANGE is a sham. I have heard that there over a hundred Climatologists who are opposed to this pop-cultural phenomenon, but can’t get any media time. And I agree that is all about $$$. Obama and the UN are using this to impliment Cap and Trade and that stupid Carbon Tax. Crooks!

    Anyway, this Climate Change thing reminds me of that whole USA for Africa fiasco. Remember that? My High School worked for weeks raising relief money. It wasn’t until later we found out that it all went to waste. Where is my oversized white sweatshirt?

  • Michael Lange

    Why are you people so willing to be controlled by the federal government? It is no surprise that the Democrats who claim man is causing global warming are now finding a way to tax you and control your behavior… Wake up people the next thing you know they will be taxing the amount of air your breath.

    I’m not advocating polluting our air, our oceans but being taxed for the amount of Carbon we use? Are you kidding me? The number one green house gas is water vapor and it omits 99.46% of the total Co2 into the atmosphere. Even if what the liberal left is telling you is true that we are causing climate change there is no way for us to stop water vapor and even if we stop everything we do that is just a small portion of the Co2 that is going into the atmosphere (.0054%)

    Slowly but surely all of our god given rights are being stripped. America needs to wake up and discover that this whole man made global warming thing is a complete and utter hoax.

    The earth has survived millions of years of natural disasters, thousands of volcanoes and earthquakes, thousands off tsunami’s and tornadoes. endless hurricanes… And then man who has in the past 60 or 70 years of the industrial revolution has caused the planet to heat up? Really??

  • Michael Lange

    Why are you people so willing to be controlled by the federal government? It is no surprise that the Democrats who claim man is causing global warming are now finding a way to tax you and control your behavior… Wake up people the next thing you know they will be taxing the amount of air your breath.

    I’m not advocating polluting our air, our oceans but being taxed for the amount of Carbon we use? Are you kidding me? The number one green house gas is water vapor and it omits 99.46% of the total Co2 into the atmosphere. Even if what the liberal left is telling you is true that we are causing climate change there is no way for us to stop water vapor and even if we stop everything we do that is just a small portion of the Co2 that is going into the atmosphere (.0054%)

    Slowly but surely all of our god given rights are being stripped. America needs to wake up and discover that this whole man made global warming thing is a complete and utter hoax.

    The earth has survived millions of years of natural disasters, thousands of volcanoes and earthquakes, thousands off tsunami’s and tornadoes. endless hurricanes… And then man who has in the past 60 or 70 years of the industrial revolution has caused the planet to heat up? Really??

  • Jack Mullins

    It certainly is hard to imagine how naive the american people have become. I am blown out of the water at how easy people jump on the band wagon without knowing the real facts. It seems like we will destroy ourselves without any natural disaster. I do believe that a revolution will occur some years from now. Too bad it will be too late! Our government is going to sink us!

  • Jack Mullins

    It certainly is hard to imagine how naive the american people have become. I am blown out of the water at how easy people jump on the band wagon without knowing the real facts. It seems like we will destroy ourselves without any natural disaster. I do believe that a revolution will occur some years from now. Too bad it will be too late! Our government is going to sink us!

  • Nathan Breier

    Sadly, many of the mainstream proponents of “Global Warming” live much more lavishly than the everyday American. They have huge homes with fancy ammenities that require large amounts of electricity. However, they can ease their conscious by purchasing carbon credits and donating to causes and non-profits that advocate green living. I don’t see Al Gore driving across the county in a Prius to make his speaking engagements. At the very least, he could fly commercial. Is a private Jet necessary? What about the so-called “green” innauguration where hundreds of thousands of people showed up to celebrate the most liberal president in history? They acted like the entire event was “green”, however, the “green” thing to do would to have NOT had the event AT ALL! Air it out over the tv and encourage people to stay home. That would have been the responsible thing to instead of having people drive and fly from all over the country thereby creating more pollution. But no, the whole climate change theory and “green living” is only a ploy to control average people and profit in the process. I wish we had politicians who would stand up for us who aren’t buying into the lies.

  • Nathan Breier

    Sadly, many of the mainstream proponents of “Global Warming” live much more lavishly than the everyday American. They have huge homes with fancy ammenities that require large amounts of electricity. However, they can ease their conscious by purchasing carbon credits and donating to causes and non-profits that advocate green living. I don’t see Al Gore driving across the county in a Prius to make his speaking engagements. At the very least, he could fly commercial. Is a private Jet necessary? What about the so-called “green” innauguration where hundreds of thousands of people showed up to celebrate the most liberal president in history? They acted like the entire event was “green”, however, the “green” thing to do would to have NOT had the event AT ALL! Air it out over the tv and encourage people to stay home. That would have been the responsible thing to instead of having people drive and fly from all over the country thereby creating more pollution. But no, the whole climate change theory and “green living” is only a ploy to control average people and profit in the process. I wish we had politicians who would stand up for us who aren’t buying into the lies.

  • MICHAEL

    I CAN’T BELIEVE I GET CHARGED TO RECYCLE BY MY WASTE COMPANY EVEN IF I DON’T RECYCLE. I HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER.

  • http://SCIENCECHERRLEADER MICHAEL

    I CAN’T BELIEVE I GET CHARGED TO RECYCLE BY MY WASTE COMPANY EVEN IF I DON’T RECYCLE. I HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER.

  • Pingback: Play It Green » Ask a Cheerleader

  • steve

    Hi Darlene,
    Don’t you think Cap and Trade can be viewed as the ultimate tax, where governments can tax life itself by taxing either the intake or by product of all living things?
    They’re trying to tax breathing!!!
    Your incentive now will be to breathe less, and the only way to avoid this tax is not to be alive.
    Since when has CO2 become a pollutant? Plants take in CO2 in day to breathe (so plants need pollution to stay alive?).
    Steve

  • steve

    Hi Darlene,
    Don’t you think Cap and Trade can be viewed as the ultimate tax, where governments can tax life itself by taxing either the intake or by product of all living things?
    They’re trying to tax breathing!!!
    Your incentive now will be to breathe less, and the only way to avoid this tax is not to be alive.
    Since when has CO2 become a pollutant? Plants take in CO2 in day to breathe (so plants need pollution to stay alive?).
    Steve

  • Scott

    Brilliant!! You don’t think that 99% of the “climatologist” are considering normal human and plant carbon dioxide impact? OMG!! You believe “the experts” on the threat of terrorism, but not scientist on climate-change? But it’s simple, there is no personal sacrifice for most when it comes to war, and protecting the environment is an “inconvenience”. Like Bush said “Don’t let the Terrorists win, keep driving them SUVs” …and keep funding the terrorists. It’s why the republican whatever it is is dying. Science and progress by nature are the products of liberal thought! The collective idea of most of these posters is as archaic as the fossils creating the very problem that fuels both terrorism and the environmental crisis! What Irony!

  • Scott

    Brilliant!! You don’t think that 99% of the “climatologist” are considering normal human and plant carbon dioxide impact? OMG!! You believe “the experts” on the threat of terrorism, but not scientist on climate-change? But it’s simple, there is no personal sacrifice for most when it comes to war, and protecting the environment is an “inconvenience”. Like Bush said “Don’t let the Terrorists win, keep driving them SUVs” …and keep funding the terrorists. It’s why the republican whatever it is is dying. Science and progress by nature are the products of liberal thought! The collective idea of most of these posters is as archaic as the fossils creating the very problem that fuels both terrorism and the environmental crisis! What Irony!

  • Harold Robertson

    There is no boubt in my mind thst there will be a climate change in the near future.

    Most of it is according to the natural cycle of nature.
    If we had tackled this problem sixty years ago maybe we could have delayed the process.
    At tht time the big corporations ran the government and all of them were against facing the problem.
    I remember when I was a boy in the forties one could go outside and see a beutiful blue sky.
    In the sixties there was a mushroom cloud in the far distance and and the sky was hazy. I agree that the big wigs see it as a money making proposition.
    I fear now that the climate change is accelerrating and I doubt we are able to even slow it down.

  • Harold Robertson

    There is no boubt in my mind thst there will be a climate change in the near future.

    Most of it is according to the natural cycle of nature.
    If we had tackled this problem sixty years ago maybe we could have delayed the process.
    At tht time the big corporations ran the government and all of them were against facing the problem.
    I remember when I was a boy in the forties one could go outside and see a beutiful blue sky.
    In the sixties there was a mushroom cloud in the far distance and and the sky was hazy. I agree that the big wigs see it as a money making proposition.
    I fear now that the climate change is accelerrating and I doubt we are able to even slow it down.

  • Sharon

    First off – let me say that people who are extreme on any one side are wrong. You need to find a happy middle ground.
    Second, let me say that while I consider myself a liberal person over all – I do have conservative view points. I don’t think that Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but What I dont understand, is why this stupid taxing, not taxing stuff is even being disussed – what SHOULD be happening is finding ways to use something OTHER then fuels that destroy the earth and taxing this company and what not – WHY NOT try other forms of fuel, like fuel cells, wind, or solar power? HELLOOO!!! MUCH easier. Yes I know it would cost a lot of money to change these plants, but in the long run it would be beneficial. Can we STOP global warming (or whatever PC term it is called now), NO, but we can slow things down, and stop being selfish and think about our future and our children’s future and their children’s future. I think doing the small things are what can help.
    Ok, everyone says turn off your AC in your house….well for people who have health issues – that is another story but when you are driving you could just put the windows down instead…it is all about the little things in life – not always the SELFISH things!

  • Sharon

    First off – let me say that people who are extreme on any one side are wrong. You need to find a happy middle ground.
    Second, let me say that while I consider myself a liberal person over all – I do have conservative view points. I don’t think that Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but What I dont understand, is why this stupid taxing, not taxing stuff is even being disussed – what SHOULD be happening is finding ways to use something OTHER then fuels that destroy the earth and taxing this company and what not – WHY NOT try other forms of fuel, like fuel cells, wind, or solar power? HELLOOO!!! MUCH easier. Yes I know it would cost a lot of money to change these plants, but in the long run it would be beneficial. Can we STOP global warming (or whatever PC term it is called now), NO, but we can slow things down, and stop being selfish and think about our future and our children’s future and their children’s future. I think doing the small things are what can help.
    Ok, everyone says turn off your AC in your house….well for people who have health issues – that is another story but when you are driving you could just put the windows down instead…it is all about the little things in life – not always the SELFISH things!

  • Jana

    If the US completely removed all the carbon emissions from our utility industy, we would have only removed approximately 8% of the WORLD’S carbon emissions. Meanwhile we have driven the cost of electricity to a point that only the wealthy can afford it. China is currently adding one new coal fired power plant on per week with none of the clean air controls that our coal power plants currently have. Does it really work if you only clean one corner of the pool? Will China’s excessive pollution not eventually drift our way?

    If we drive the cost of electricity up 30%, 40% or 50% or more this will effect the cost of groceries, clothing, etc. Big manufacturing jobs will once again look for locations in China and India where the utility bill alone doesn’t eat up all of their profit.

    Clean air needs to be a priority, but Cap and Trade is not the answer.

  • Jana

    If the US completely removed all the carbon emissions from our utility industy, we would have only removed approximately 8% of the WORLD’S carbon emissions. Meanwhile we have driven the cost of electricity to a point that only the wealthy can afford it. China is currently adding one new coal fired power plant on per week with none of the clean air controls that our coal power plants currently have. Does it really work if you only clean one corner of the pool? Will China’s excessive pollution not eventually drift our way?

    If we drive the cost of electricity up 30%, 40% or 50% or more this will effect the cost of groceries, clothing, etc. Big manufacturing jobs will once again look for locations in China and India where the utility bill alone doesn’t eat up all of their profit.

    Clean air needs to be a priority, but Cap and Trade is not the answer.

  • Kennit Barban

    Cap and trade? A made-up money grubbing scam. First a complete moron comes along with a stupid “theory” about “global warming.” After a while, this isn’t playing well, because the atmospheric scientist have his freaking number. The “warmers”, or the followers of this phony Pied Piper, change the name to “climate change.” Their thinking is that by changing the name, they won’t have to explain why it isn’t getting “warmer.” The stupid continue to follow and the low level swine politicos smell money, so it persists. Just as Hitler once said, “If we tell a lie often enough, soon everyone will believe it.”
    Anyone who is stupid enough to buy into this crap, I have a real nice bridge in NY that I will let go real cheap!

  • Kennit Barban

    Cap and trade? A made-up money grubbing scam. First a complete moron comes along with a stupid “theory” about “global warming.” After a while, this isn’t playing well, because the atmospheric scientist have his freaking number. The “warmers”, or the followers of this phony Pied Piper, change the name to “climate change.” Their thinking is that by changing the name, they won’t have to explain why it isn’t getting “warmer.” The stupid continue to follow and the low level swine politicos smell money, so it persists. Just as Hitler once said, “If we tell a lie often enough, soon everyone will believe it.”
    Anyone who is stupid enough to buy into this crap, I have a real nice bridge in NY that I will let go real cheap!

  • Chuck Larsen

    Jana, you are so right. That is one reason Bush thankfully did not sigh the Koyto Treaty. It favored only the developing nation and punished us until they caught up with us economically. Of course no one in their right mind would want the US to continue to be the only super power. If we continue our direction it might solve our illigal imigtant problem as who will want to come here to improve their lives?

  • http://ScienceCheerleader Chuck Larsen

    Jana, you are so right. That is one reason Bush thankfully did not sigh the Koyto Treaty. It favored only the developing nation and punished us until they caught up with us economically. Of course no one in their right mind would want the US to continue to be the only super power. If we continue our direction it might solve our illigal imigtant problem as who will want to come here to improve their lives?

  • Brad “Blinddog” Fort

    I am never amazed that people believe things that support their own interests. I have never liked the term “global warming” because it implies that “warming” is the problem. If warming was the problem then cooling would be the solution. Carbon is a gas that is both necessary for all living things, but it is also a poisionous gas. The idea that if we dump more carbon in the air that we will feed the plants and shrubs is crazy. But it is true that if all carbon was eliminated we would all die. It is a delicate thing. The truth is we don’t know how much carbon we can add before we all die, but that # does exist. Is this change going to be expensive? Yes. For all these people that believe that our carbon emmissions are food for the plants, I have a suggestion. Grab a couple of plants and put them in your garage; then start your car engine and park it in the garage with the engine running; close the garage door with the car engine running while sitting next to the plants. Hang out there for a couple of hours and if you are still alive you can report back to us on how you feel. OR, put a plastic bag over your head and put a couple of plants in there with you and let me know if those plants can turn you carbon into oxygen before you die? Some might call this extreme. And it is. But it makes the larger point that carbon is dangerious, and plants are not going to convert carbon into oxygen fast enough to keep us alive. Science is not here to bankrupt the USA; we just need some understanding and some rational thought. I don’t care what Al Gore does or says because it does not make carbon any more dangerous than it already is. It is not political in science- it is a fact. You know that sitting in your garage with a car engine running is dangerous if not deadly, why people have trouble translating that into the enviroment is something that I don’t understand. Peace.

  • Brad “Blinddog” Fort

    I am never amazed that people believe things that support their own interests. I have never liked the term “global warming” because it implies that “warming” is the problem. If warming was the problem then cooling would be the solution. Carbon is a gas that is both necessary for all living things, but it is also a poisionous gas. The idea that if we dump more carbon in the air that we will feed the plants and shrubs is crazy. But it is true that if all carbon was eliminated we would all die. It is a delicate thing. The truth is we don’t know how much carbon we can add before we all die, but that # does exist. Is this change going to be expensive? Yes. For all these people that believe that our carbon emmissions are food for the plants, I have a suggestion. Grab a couple of plants and put them in your garage; then start your car engine and park it in the garage with the engine running; close the garage door with the car engine running while sitting next to the plants. Hang out there for a couple of hours and if you are still alive you can report back to us on how you feel. OR, put a plastic bag over your head and put a couple of plants in there with you and let me know if those plants can turn you carbon into oxygen before you die? Some might call this extreme. And it is. But it makes the larger point that carbon is dangerious, and plants are not going to convert carbon into oxygen fast enough to keep us alive. Science is not here to bankrupt the USA; we just need some understanding and some rational thought. I don’t care what Al Gore does or says because it does not make carbon any more dangerous than it already is. It is not political in science- it is a fact. You know that sitting in your garage with a car engine running is dangerous if not deadly, why people have trouble translating that into the enviroment is something that I don’t understand. Peace.

  • Braxton

    Ok, I’m no highly educated man, but I’d like to point out some of the faults in people’s replys to this matter.

    Water vapor does not emit C02. Period. Water is comprised of 1 part hydrogen and 2 parts oxygen. Ludicrous. Water vapor is absorbed into the atmosphere, condensed into clouds, and then returned to the earth in the form of rain.

    Carbon, I hate to inform, IS, factually proven, in large quantities, wreak a little havoc on the environment. It’s not delicate; HUMANS emit C02 when they exhale. If all the pollutants in the world stopped, I’m sure the trees could survive; we aren’t feeding them with our smog. Trees existed before machines and industries, i’m sure they’ll do just fine.

    We’re, rather, smothering the planet with gluttony and convenience. People don’t want their coal taxed, or their energy more efficient, because at the bottom line, it eats the fat cat’s money on Capital Hill. And they’ll try to make their cause just by saying Obama is trying to take YOUR jobs!

    Nobody’s taking any jobs. It’s not necessary too; if coal was eradicated right now, there would have to be SOME sort of other energy job to pop up.

  • Braxton

    Ok, I’m no highly educated man, but I’d like to point out some of the faults in people’s replys to this matter.

    Water vapor does not emit C02. Period. Water is comprised of 1 part hydrogen and 2 parts oxygen. Ludicrous. Water vapor is absorbed into the atmosphere, condensed into clouds, and then returned to the earth in the form of rain.

    Carbon, I hate to inform, IS, factually proven, in large quantities, wreak a little havoc on the environment. It’s not delicate; HUMANS emit C02 when they exhale. If all the pollutants in the world stopped, I’m sure the trees could survive; we aren’t feeding them with our smog. Trees existed before machines and industries, i’m sure they’ll do just fine.

    We’re, rather, smothering the planet with gluttony and convenience. People don’t want their coal taxed, or their energy more efficient, because at the bottom line, it eats the fat cat’s money on Capital Hill. And they’ll try to make their cause just by saying Obama is trying to take YOUR jobs!

    Nobody’s taking any jobs. It’s not necessary too; if coal was eradicated right now, there would have to be SOME sort of other energy job to pop up.

  • Jay

    My favorite line…”If you reduce carbon dioxide the trees and plants don’t breathe, therefore we don’t get the oxygen we need.” What happened before cars and coal, I guess in places with no people burning things life could not exist? Hahahaha, that is some funny stuff.

    My second favorite line…”Most of it (global warming)is according to the natural cycle of nature.
    If we had tackled this problem sixty years ago maybe we could have delayed the process.” If is is a natural cycle that we have no control over how in the hell would we be able to delay the process if we started 60 years ago?

    My third favorite line…”I have heard that there over a hundred Climatologists who are opposed to this pop-cultural phenomenon, but can’t get any media time.” Really, over 100 people who say the global warming is not happening, no duh. I guess the other 3000 who claim it is happening have been trumped.

    You know who else doesn’t believe in any of this stuff, Rush, Shawn, and Glen, how many of you listen to them? Just curious.

  • Jay

    My favorite line…”If you reduce carbon dioxide the trees and plants don’t breathe, therefore we don’t get the oxygen we need.” What happened before cars and coal, I guess in places with no people burning things life could not exist? Hahahaha, that is some funny stuff.

    My second favorite line…”Most of it (global warming)is according to the natural cycle of nature.
    If we had tackled this problem sixty years ago maybe we could have delayed the process.” If is is a natural cycle that we have no control over how in the hell would we be able to delay the process if we started 60 years ago?

    My third favorite line…”I have heard that there over a hundred Climatologists who are opposed to this pop-cultural phenomenon, but can’t get any media time.” Really, over 100 people who say the global warming is not happening, no duh. I guess the other 3000 who claim it is happening have been trumped.

    You know who else doesn’t believe in any of this stuff, Rush, Shawn, and Glen, how many of you listen to them? Just curious.

  • Scott B

    These arguments seem to be interesting and foolish all at the same time. I think what eveyone (including myself) is forgeting is the convience factor. Taxes are necessary for all things including infrastructure ie, microwave pizzas, and not having to poop in a whole in the woods(I like toilets and pizza). Also law enforcement which can at times be a mess, but is still necessary. Cap and trade is just another law brought up by a congressman or senator , or whoever brings that stuff up, whom at some point in their illustrious career has crossed paths with a lobbiest. We all know what these people do. The reality is if I were a senator or a congressman and somebody offered me a perk to change my mind I probobably, and so would you! I don’t give a damn what anybody says it all comes down to the almighty dollar. If we take a step back and walk in another mans (or womans) shoes for a minute we might be more open to a dialogue that is conducive to kindness and a greater ability to compromise,and find meaningful answers that you ,me, and the planet can live with. Thank You and Have a Good Day!

Newer Comments →