Comments on: U.S. cap-and-trade choice inferior to carbon tax Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jerseyguy Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:24:15 +0000 I hear all the rosey talk about how this bill will help us, but two parts of the CBO Cost Estimate deserve special consideration because of what they imply.

Check page 24 or 42 titled “Worker Assistance”
The fact that worker assistance is capped at $4.3 Billion suggests that the CBO is unsure of the economic impact on everyday working Americans. Plus the benefit is only 70% ofaverage wages. I don’t know about you, but I would rather keep my job at 100% of wages.

When you lose your income and you fall into the poorest 5th of people, don’t worry – be happy, because the “Refundable Low-Income Tax Credit” (page 20 of 42) kicks in with the princely sum of $359 for a family of five.

Even MIT, which appears to support Cap & Trade ( Reilly_Response_Letter_1.pdf) concedes that “Those households with large heating and cooling bills because of the climate in which they live or who drive more than average will face higher costs.”

Seems like we could have done a better job of reaching energy independence than this heavy handy monstrosity

By: Michael S Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:37:56 +0000 Either system is horrible. Restricting economic growth in the face of a global depression for the sake of an unproven scientific theory is pure insanity.

The sole purpose of global warming nonsense is to keep the third world repressed and large corporate conglomerates in control. The only way either of those systems will lead to a reduction in CO2 is by economic repression.

I can’t believe there are still people out there who believe this stuff and want to see society devolved into a stone-age oligarchy of corporate lords and feudal serfs.

By: Matthew L. Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:27:23 +0000 Cap and trade is not a “market based” system, its just government bureaucracy ostensibly disguised in a pretty package. A true market based system would allow the consumer to decide if global warming is important or not by buying the energy they deem appropriate. Changing consumer preferences has been the driver of all sorts of technological advances; I see no reason why it shouldn’t change the type of energy we use. Maybe the government would do well to realize that people simply don’t want to buy “clean energy” yet and leave well enough alone instead of shoving “change” down our throats by way of a coercive energy tax.

By: phoenix1 Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:25:49 +0000 That is correct Anubis. Thank you for your comment.
phoenix1 appreciates all readers.

By: Anubis Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:21:21 +0000 We can achieve what ever we put our minds to as a society. There are few technological limitations. The greatest impediment to moving forward on sustainable energy consumption is making it work under market conditions. Capitalism is the true world religion in daily practice. Instead of worrying about the impact of change to the economy, we should consider the impact that the lack of change would have on our planet. Where does that that come up in any business model?

On the other hand, we can always plod on like dinosaurs. Right Phoenix1?

By: phoenix1 Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:54:49 +0000 How many carbon footprints for a triceratops?