Is McCain Dumping Cap-and-Trade?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Oh please Kevin, cap-and-trade requires a HUGE bureaucratic system to manage, so a lot of taxpayer dollars will just end up going to waste. It is the absolute definition of a Soviet-style economy, so there's nothing "open" about it, it's entirely controlled by the government. If you want to compare other countries, Germany implemented a cap-and-trade system and now everyone pays a 30%-40% increase on their electric bill. Yeah, way to fix the economy, let's tax the American people!
Besides, if you did your research, CO2 is not even a major greenhouse gas. To break it up, greenhouse gases are composed of 95% water vapor, 3% CO2, and 2% other. So why would you try to restrict CO2 when it's not going to do anything? The sun is what's causing the warming cycle, not us.
Kudos to McCain for dumping that garbage.

Chris of PA 6:38PM July 19, 2008

good discussion
fyi, i'm pro energy by whatever way we can get it...i just think spending $140/bbl is unsustainable for the average guy...figure we are spending at least $80/bbl more than we used to and we consume about 20mm bbl/day here in U.S...that's a lot of coin.
If businesses can benefit from cheaper sources of energy we're all better off...in addition, we move away from foreign dependency. Think about how much is spent to protect the middle east to keep pumping oil for western economies. These are big $$ as well- going into THEIR economies.
I'm just thinking practically...if we can lower cost of energy by virtue of the fact they can now develop and deliver alterantive sources because of very high oil prices AND keep the environment in better condition, why not? Develop these new energy technologies here in the U.S and export to less competitive economies for $$?
More oil supply seems like an easy fix, but its the aging refineries which is the real headline risk and not supply of crude. It will take YEARS to update and bring on line new refineries...this means the cost of energy derived from oil is unlikely to collapse in near term.
You're right about Arizona heat...I wish New York had some of that...our state might be able to make some money on those UV's...giddy up.
if this posts too late, have good wknd.

kevin of NY 5:18PM July 11, 2008

"We agree on this point then- we do need a better energy policy. Just not sure why my thinking "prevents" that...having efficient factories is consistent with a good energy policy...might as well add renewable energy and alternative enery to the mix too...those economists will tell us we need them ALL especially if the thinking is oil will be stuck at these stratospheric levels (and going higher)."
Your thinking prevents this because you seem to think that we have to do "something" to curtail global warming, at the expense of imposing huge costs on Americans. If you are for more drilling, then I'll offer you an apology, but don't quote that new liberal line of "the oil companies have 68 million acres" because it doesn't fly. You can't address a problem without being able to have the capital to fight it. I am for alternative energies, but I'm not for just throwing out all kinds of platforms. We need to find which is viable, and in order to find the one that is viable, we need lots of capital. Those same economists that are telling you you need alternative energies are also telling you we need more supplies of oil on the market. Face it, the only way the price will come down in the long-run is more oil on the market.
"Regarding your last point about the fallacy of working to curb warming and hurting the economy...not sure which economists you are referring. Whenever there is a NEED FOR ANYTHING, capital-driven economies will work to supply that need and create economic value."
It's a fallacy because in order to fight global warming you need lots of capital (notice a recurring theme?). According to the IAEA, in order to fight global warming you need more than $17 trillion. And the thing about estimates, when it comes to cost, they are almost always wrong. But let's say this number is true. Who do you think would pay for this, or carry the most burden? I'll give you a hint: you live the country that would carry that burden.
Thanks for the link, but I've already read it. I did a google search and couldn't find too many in-depth studies on acid rain.

Chris of AZ 4:13PM July 11, 2008

Chris-
"This type of thinking is what prevents us from doing what needs to be done regarding our energy policy."
We agree on this point then- we do need a better energy policy. Just not sure why my thinking "prevents" that...having efficient factories is consistent with a good energy policy...might as well add renewable energy and alternative enery to the mix too...those economists will tell us we need them ALL especially if the thinking is oil will be stuck at these stratospheric levels (and going higher).
Regarding your last point about the fallacy of working to curb warming and hurting the economy...not sure which economists you are referring. Whenever there is a NEED FOR ANYTHING, capital-driven economies will work to supply that need and create economic value.
Aslo, here is the link for acid rain. If you disagree with it let Wikepedia know...they aren't always right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

kevin of NY 3:48PM July 11, 2008

"Funny stuff...for me, whether the world is changing at the hands of mankind of just some galactic shifting of the stars, we can't ignore it...otherwise, we risk getting "bit." "
The arrogance of man. First, you believe that mankind has the power to affect something as vast and mysterious and old as the Earth through its meager technological innovations, and second, if it's not man, you believe that mankind can stop natural events from occurring.
This type of thinking is what prevents us from doing what needs to be done regarding our energy policy.
"but we DEFINITELY know we can do more on our end to slow it down. All the while not giving up a whole lot economically or our standard of living..."
That's another fallacy; the belief you can do both global warming and not affect our economy. Most economists will tell you that that is hard to achieve, if not impossible.

Chris of AZ 2:56PM July 11, 2008

"Chris, why do you "think" that?"
I think that because I live in reality. Reality shows that we haven't started dying from acid rain and reality shows that global warming, or lack thereof, is much more complicated than we are led to believe. Anyone that says that "the earth will warm X degrees by 2050" based on some computer model obviously has no clue and is hedging their bets about either being wrong or right.
Is hot? Damn straight. Then again, I live in Phoenix, AZ.

Chris of AZ 2:51PM July 11, 2008

Chris, i don't blog much, but here's my first thot to your comment...recall Peter Seller's Pink Panther Strikes Again?
Clouseau: Does your dog bite?
Hotel Clerk: No.
Clouseau: [bowing down to pet the dog] Nice doggie.
[Dog barks and bites Clouseau in the hand]
Clouseau: I thought you said your dog did not bite!
Hotel Clerk: That is not my dog.
Funny stuff...for me, whether the world is changing at the hands of mankind of just some galactic shifting of the stars, we can't ignore it...otherwise, we risk getting "bit."
No question we can do more to make our environment safer....I don't need to live in a commune and practice chanting to understand that...acid rain or global warming may not be the result of of our hands, but we DEFINITELY know we can do more on our end to slow it down. All the while not giving up a whole lot economically or our standard of living...in fact, we are likely to improve both. thx for ur comments though.

kevin of NY 12:04PM July 11, 2008

Chris, why do you "think" that?

Dan of FL 10:50AM July 11, 2008

Kevin, wishful thinking. And I don't think there ever was "acid rain", just as I think there is no man-made "global warming".

Chris of AZ 10:38AM July 11, 2008

McCain's reversal on cap and trade would certainly be short-sighted, particularly given the success of our successful SO2 policy which reduced the impact of acid rain last the 15 years...and at neglible cost to the economy. People were up in arms then too.
Folks don't get it...cap and trade allows for open market pricing which helps businesses evaluate the economic costs AND dividends of managing their emissions. Simply, enterprises which reduce their emissions BELOW their limits will be paid for their surpluses....WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?
Not only are they reducing their carbon footprints but they can make money too? What are opponents to cap and trade thinking?
ALSO, if we agree to trade carbon credits intenationally we can literally export and increase our trade surplus while creating more jobs at home...the U.S. is a leader in technology when it wants to be and should get on this early before the world figures this opportunity out...whether the U.S. is on board with climate change is secondary, the rest of the world is buying into this and spending biig money to get into compliance.

Kevin Duffy-Acevedo of NY 10:28AM July 11, 2008