Cap & Trade

There is a move out there to install Cap & Trade requirements to force our utility companies to clean up the air. I am all for using technology to clean up any mess, but I question that this move will do anything but create additional costs for the consumers. If the money raised went directly into the environmental move to clean things up, so be it. The real location of the money is into the general obligation funds of our Government. I think it is high time we asked our Government to cut spending and lower taxes on the general population. You might be fooled by indirect costs, but I for one am not. I am attaching information from the net concerning Cap and Trade so you Will be fully informed. The comments in bold are my additions:

Emissions trading (or emission trading) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. It is sometimes called cap and trade. (Snark, incentive? How about fines and fees if they don't)

A coal power plant in Germany. Due to emissions trading, coal may become less competitive as a fuel. (Less Competitive means that the Germans will pay more for the same level of support as they had. Is that what we have Government for?)

A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. 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.[1](Lowest cost? By what standard? The caps were not in place when the companies built the plants so you know they won't meet the higher standards of today. Will the Government step in and help them build scrubbers to meet the higher standards? )

There are active trading programs in several pollutants. For greenhouse gases the largest is the European Union Emission Trading Scheme.[2] In the United States there is a national market to reduce acid rain and several regional markets in nitrogen oxides.[3] Markets for other pollutants tend to be smaller and more localized.

If this was done by a Government to help things get better, I would fully support it. The problem with Cap & Trade is it is just another way Government raises money from us, me and you, and returns nothing in return. Who do you think pays the higher costs? Businesses are just a pass-through organization and there is absolutely no limit on what they add to those fees. There is no return on our investment by the Government, so all in all it is like a Ponzi scheme and we pay the piper. Do you think they can really reduce emissions cheaply and make money doing so?


1 comment:

  1. Just about everything the government does just pass the cost down to us taxpayers