wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] superf88 July 06, 2009 - 09:44AM

  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.

  
  
• [2] Diane July 06, 2009 - 10:12AM

  How does Mr. Waxman feel about a tax on pollution rather than a cap and trade program?

  
  
• [3] shaun from Astoria July 06, 2009 - 10:13AM

  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...

  
  
• [4] nat from brooklyn July 06, 2009 - 10:15AM

  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?

  
  
• [5] Joe Corrao from Brooklyn July 06, 2009 - 10:20AM

  Reduce carbon thru a tax!!! genius...people we are screwed....big governmentis killing us.

  
  
• [6] Noah from park slope July 06, 2009 - 10:21AM

  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?

  
  
• [7] Hugh from Brookyn July 06, 2009 - 10:27AM

  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?

  
  
• [8] Marianne Waldow from Manhattan July 06, 2009 - 10:28AM

  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

  
  
• [9] MichaelB from Morningside Heights July 06, 2009 - 10:30AM

  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.

  
  
• [10] gary from Queens July 06, 2009 - 10:40AM

  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.

  
  
• [11] hjs from 11211 July 06, 2009 - 10:54AM

  why not just a simple gas use tax

  
  
• [12] superf88 July 06, 2009 - 09:21PM

  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