Just hearing the reply/exchange -- misunderstanding somewhere, the only existing pollution swap in the US is intracontinental:
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com
in other words, a power plant in PA can today buy credits to pollute the surrounding community more by purchasing the credits from a power plant in CT
Jul. 06 2009 09:21 PM
Score: 0/0
hjs
from 11211
why not just a simple gas use tax
Jul. 06 2009 10:54 AM
Score: 0/0
gary
from Queens
There are two flaws among many:
1. It applies only to Americans. Meanwhile, in terms of carbon output, China creates a Japan every 3 months, and a U.S. every 9 months. The US would be subsidizing the polluters, while paying the penalty in terms of lower economic growth, which will mean a slower advance in technological innovation and standard of living, and all that is corelated to growth.
2. Cap and trade results in "energy apartheid": Those who can afford to polute, cans still do so. Waxman's constituents in Hollywood can still have their private jets and Limos and mansions, because they will be able to afford the energy costs. They will also be able to afford the socalled alternatives, like hybrid cars, that Waxman mentioned. But people in warm or hot climates cannot "lower their demand for energy", as Waxman put it. they will be forced to pay more. in the end, energy will cost more, and the middle class will be priced out of the market. Carbon output may even be the same, just more expensive.
Jul. 06 2009 10:40 AM
Score: 0/0
MichaelB
from Morningside Heights
All the commentators above that some amount of pollution "benefits" us all. What do I mean? I mean, we all use electricity and products.
What I really mean is, that it is totally unrealistic that we can simply shut it down to zero overnight. You-all would be howling if you understood how that would impact your life IMMEDIATELY!
We need realistic avenues to get to where we as a society need to go. I WOULD support any policies that would prevent the few from getting rich from pollution, directly or indirectly.
Jul. 06 2009 10:30 AM
Score: 0/0
Marianne Waldow
from Manhattan
Congressman Waxman,
Thank you for your work on the environment AND all of your work. You are a wonderful example of government helping people. California is lucky to have you!
Marianne Waldow
Jul. 06 2009 10:28 AM
Score: 0/0
Hugh
from Brookyn
Most powerful lobbies? Will Waxman mention the Israel lobby, whose more recent success is a not-very-tacit Biden endorsement of an Israeli attack on Iran?
Jul. 06 2009 10:27 AM
Score: 0/0
Noah
from park slope
After hearing the response to superf88's comment, I'm curious what exactly are "carbon emissions." What are some examples, and how do they differ from standard pollution which would have multiplied effects when concentrated?
Jul. 06 2009 10:21 AM
Score: 0/0
Joe Corrao
from Brooklyn
Reduce carbon thru a tax!!! genius...people we are screwed....big governmentis killing us.
Jul. 06 2009 10:20 AM
Score: 0/0
nat
from brooklyn
The issue with Cap and Trade is that it assumes an inherent right to pollute. If its a social ill, why aren't we treating pollution like we would treat something like sweat shops? There's no inherent business right to exploit workers, but there is one damage the environment?
Yes cutting pollution levels is something we must do, but if it is a real social ill we should treat it as such. Many industries lost their economic ground when their products were criminalized. We didn't set up a cap and trade on drugs, slavery, or sweat shops; we decided they were abhorrent and collapsed the market that allowed them.
Also, I don't own a car. Where do I sign up to sell my carbon credit? Do I have an inherent right to pollute, or do I have to do it carelessly on an industrial scale first?
Jul. 06 2009 10:15 AM
Score: 0/0
shaun
from Astoria
Does not the cap and trade bill still allow for new coal fire plants to be built? If so, why? What's the point!?! New coal plants seem to defeat the purpose...
Jul. 06 2009 10:13 AM
Score: 0/0
Diane
How does Mr. Waxman feel about a tax on pollution rather than a cap and trade program?
Jul. 06 2009 10:12 AM
Score: 0/0
superf88
Under cap and trade, a polluter can pollute as much as he likes so long as he pays extra (presumably while following ever-changing pollution rules, naturally). Pollution would become much more concentrated and even morally defensible than it is presently.
While it is obvious why someone living far from a power plant or other polluter would be in favor of this scheme, I cannot imagine why the family living beside this plant would vote yes.
Would the state compensate them or something? Please explain how cap and trade even intellectually is not simply inventing a new game of winners and losers.
Jul. 06 2009 09:44 AM
Score: 0/0
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Learn more. Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
posting.
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
Privacy Policy and
Terms Of Use.
Comments [12]
Just hearing the reply/exchange -- misunderstanding somewhere, the only existing pollution swap in the US is intracontinental:
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com
in other words, a power plant in PA can today buy credits to pollute the surrounding community more by purchasing the credits from a power plant in CT
why not just a simple gas use tax
There are two flaws among many:
1. It applies only to Americans. Meanwhile, in terms of carbon output, China creates a Japan every 3 months, and a U.S. every 9 months. The US would be subsidizing the polluters, while paying the penalty in terms of lower economic growth, which will mean a slower advance in technological innovation and standard of living, and all that is corelated to growth.
2. Cap and trade results in "energy apartheid": Those who can afford to polute, cans still do so. Waxman's constituents in Hollywood can still have their private jets and Limos and mansions, because they will be able to afford the energy costs. They will also be able to afford the socalled alternatives, like hybrid cars, that Waxman mentioned. But people in warm or hot climates cannot "lower their demand for energy", as Waxman put it. they will be forced to pay more. in the end, energy will cost more, and the middle class will be priced out of the market. Carbon output may even be the same, just more expensive.
All the commentators above that some amount of pollution "benefits" us all. What do I mean? I mean, we all use electricity and products.
What I really mean is, that it is totally unrealistic that we can simply shut it down to zero overnight. You-all would be howling if you understood how that would impact your life IMMEDIATELY!
We need realistic avenues to get to where we as a society need to go. I WOULD support any policies that would prevent the few from getting rich from pollution, directly or indirectly.
Congressman Waxman,
Thank you for your work on the environment AND all of your work. You are a wonderful example of government helping people. California is lucky to have you!
Marianne Waldow
Most powerful lobbies? Will Waxman mention the Israel lobby, whose more recent success is a not-very-tacit Biden endorsement of an Israeli attack on Iran?
After hearing the response to superf88's comment, I'm curious what exactly are "carbon emissions." What are some examples, and how do they differ from standard pollution which would have multiplied effects when concentrated?
Reduce carbon thru a tax!!! genius...people we are screwed....big governmentis killing us.
The issue with Cap and Trade is that it assumes an inherent right to pollute. If its a social ill, why aren't we treating pollution like we would treat something like sweat shops? There's no inherent business right to exploit workers, but there is one damage the environment?
Yes cutting pollution levels is something we must do, but if it is a real social ill we should treat it as such. Many industries lost their economic ground when their products were criminalized. We didn't set up a cap and trade on drugs, slavery, or sweat shops; we decided they were abhorrent and collapsed the market that allowed them.
Also, I don't own a car. Where do I sign up to sell my carbon credit? Do I have an inherent right to pollute, or do I have to do it carelessly on an industrial scale first?
Does not the cap and trade bill still allow for new coal fire plants to be built? If so, why? What's the point!?! New coal plants seem to defeat the purpose...
How does Mr. Waxman feel about a tax on pollution rather than a cap and trade program?
Under cap and trade, a polluter can pollute as much as he likes so long as he pays extra
(presumably while following ever-changing pollution rules, naturally). Pollution would become much more concentrated and even morally defensible than it is presently.
While it is obvious why someone living far from a power plant or other polluter would be in favor of this scheme, I cannot imagine why the family living beside this plant would vote yes.
Would the state compensate them or something?
Please explain how cap and trade even intellectually is not simply inventing a new game of winners and losers.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.