Pollution Control

There seems to be a lot of confusion out there regarding pollution control and the best way to achieve it. I'm hoping with this thread we can clear up some of that confusion and get into discussions of how best we might curb pollution as individuals and collectively as a nation.

Whether you support it, or oppose it, I think cap and trade is one of the most misunderstood methods of pollution control out there. There are legitimate pros and cons but Cap and trade is not, as some think, a government plot to destroy industry. It is actually an industry proposal as an alternative to strict regulation. I hope we can get into the legitimate pros and cons, as well as alternative policies, but let's start with an explanation of cap and trade or emissions trading as it has been known longer:

"Emissions trading (also known as cap and trade) is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.[1]

A central authority (usually a governmental body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. The limit or cap is allocated or sold to firms in the form of emissions permits which represent the right to emit or discharge a specific volume of the specified pollutant. Firms are required to hold a number of permits (or carbon credits) equivalent to their emissions. The total number of permits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Firms that need to increase their emission permits must buy permits from those who require fewer permits.[1] The transfer of permits 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. Thus, in theory, those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society."
Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please tell us what you like and don't like about this and other methods of pollution control and present your alternatives.

Catawba said:

There seems to be a lot of confusion out there regarding pollution control and the best way to achieve it. I'm hoping with this thread we can clear up some of that confusion and get into discussions of how best we might curb pollution as individuals and collectively as a nation.

Whether you support it, or oppose it, I think cap and trade is one of the most misunderstood methods of pollution control out there. There are legitimate pros and cons but Cap and trade is not, as some think, a government plot to destroy industry. It is actually an industry proposal as an alternative to strict regulation. I hope we can get into the legitimate pros and cons, as well as alternative policies, but let's start with an explanation of cap and trade or emissions trading as it has been known longer:

"Emissions trading (also known as cap and trade) is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.[1]

A central authority (usually a governmental body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. The limit or cap is allocated or sold to firms in the form of emissions permits which represent the right to emit or discharge a specific volume of the specified pollutant. Firms are required to hold a number of permits (or carbon credits) equivalent to their emissions. The total number of permits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Firms that need to increase their emission permits must buy permits from those who require fewer permits.[1] The transfer of permits 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. Thus, in theory, those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society."
Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please tell us what you like and don't like about this and other methods of pollution control and present your alternatives.

Click to expand...

The major problem I see with this and related subjects is that too many people wrongfully believe that technological progress can be speeded up with mere money. Actual scientific genius is in short supply, despite the numbers of scientists working on our energy problems. And no matter the solution they do eventually come up with, there will be a new set of problems to deal with.

UtahBill said:

The major problem I see with this and related subjects is that too many people wrongfully believe that technological progress can be speeded up with mere money. Actual scientific genius is in short supply, despite the numbers of scientists working on our energy problems. And no matter the solution they do eventually come up with, there will be a new set of problems to deal with.

Click to expand...

But if there are financial incentives for a company to clean up, then they're more likely to spend money on research to do just that. It's actually pretty close to economic Darwinism - those that move forward quickly will gain. Those who move slowly will have to buy their emissions allowances from those who out-maneuvered them.

The only problem I have with people calling this "government interference" is that this is actually based on the idea crafted by Republicans in the early 1990s to lessen nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and other pollutants. And they have largely been a great success.

Our Cap and Trade NOx the SOx Off - WSJ.com (there are many others).

In many cases, these programs have reduced pollutants faster than expected and the environment was shown to recover from the damage more quickly than expected.

Perhaps people would prefer it if it were instituted by region or state as opposed to federally?

Cap and Trade became socialism the moment a (D) entered the White House, unfortunately. What was previously part of the Republican platform is now politically unfeasible.

So instead of a market-based approach, we're going to get directives from the EPA. Comply, and comply in a specific manner, or shut down.

Deuce said:

Cap and Trade became socialism the moment a (D) entered the White House, unfortunately. What was previously part of the Republican platform is now politically unfeasible.

So instead of a market-based approach, we're going to get directives from the EPA. Comply, and comply in a specific manner, or shut down.

Click to expand...

Crap and trade was bullsh!t from day one.

Ya, the EPA is going to regulate what plants consume. This is nothing but social engineering, plain and simple.

Ed Gein said:

Crap and trade was bullsh!t from day one.

Ya, the EPA is going to regulate what plants consume. This is nothing but social engineering, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

In October 2008 it was a free-market solution supported by:
John McCain
Sarah Palin
Tim Pawlenty
Newt Gingrich
Ronald Reagan (implemented a cap and trade system for lead in gasoline)
George H W Bush (implemented cap and trade for acid rain emissions)
George W Bush (expanded on his father's system)

You say this now, since the GOP has been feeding you guys these talking points since Obama got elected, I wonder if your opinion was really so strong before then.

Deuce said:

Cap and Trade became socialism the moment a (D) entered the White House, unfortunately. What was previously part of the Republican platform is now politically unfeasible.

So instead of a market-based approach, we're going to get directives from the EPA. Comply, and comply in a specific manner, or shut down.

Click to expand...

You are exactly right. Pollution credit trading (cap and trade) was the way business preferred to be regulated.

It came from their input in the rules making process.

Deuce said:

In October 2008 it was a free-market solution supported by:
John McCain
Sarah Palin
Tim Pawlenty
Newt Gingrich
Ronald Reagan (implemented a cap and trade system for lead in gasoline)
George H W Bush (implemented cap and trade for acid rain emissions)
George W Bush (expanded on his father's system)

You say this now, since the GOP has been feeding you guys these talking points since Obama got elected, I wonder if your opinion was really so strong before then.

Click to expand...

How quickly they forget, or didn't know to begin with!

Ed Gein said:

Crap and trade was bullsh!t from day one.

Ya, the EPA is going to regulate what plants consume. This is nothing but social engineering, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

What is your alternative way to regulate pollution? Or are you pro-pollution?

With sincere apologies, I point out that I left out Huckabee from the "supports cap and trade" list. He, along with Palin, Pawlenty, McCain, and Gingrich, have all directly and clearly stated in the past that they would support an emissions trading system for carbon dioxide.

Sorry, Mr. Huckabee. Didn't mean to leave you out.

Deuce said:

With sincere apologies, I point out that I left out Huckabee from the "supports cap and trade" list. He, along with Palin, Pawlenty, McCain, and Gingrich, have all directly and clearly stated in the past that they would support an emissions trading system for carbon dioxide.

Sorry, Mr. Huckabee. Didn't mean to leave you out.

Click to expand...

If a Republican says it: "Market-based solution". If a Democrat says it: "Socialism".

Doesn't that apply to a lot of things?

If Romney crafts healthcare reform: "Market-based solution". If Democrats do it: "Government takeover of healthcare."

FilmFestGuy said:

If a Republican says it: "Market-based solution". If a Democrat says it: "Socialism".

Doesn't that apply to a lot of things?

If Romney crafts healthcare reform: "Market-based solution". If Democrats do it: "Government takeover of healthcare."

Click to expand...

Not to mention the mandate at a nationwide level was first proposed by Republicans during the Clinton administration.

I don't like the simple idea of a cap because you need to have a minimum price for carbon, otherwise uncertainty will discourage business from making the investment. The carbon price in the EU got so low that here no one really cares about it.

Now, you can complicate the cap by having minimum and maximum prices and other special mechanisms within the cap, but then it gets too complicated and that creates more uncertainty, which subsequently discourages business from taking carbon reduction measures.

The main reason politicians like caps is so they can claim they are going to reduce CO2 by X% and, also, to help form the basis of international agreements; i.e. 'everyone does 10%, that way it's fair for everyone'. Which of course is total rubbish anyway, because everyone had different levels of CO2 emissions at the time they have arbitrarily decided is the baseline for reductions, usually 1990.

The best option is a straight forward tax. That is almost certainly what the Conservative led government is going to propose in the UK. It's simple and it will work.

Deuce said:

In October 2008 it was a free-market solution supported by:
John McCain
Sarah Palin
Tim Pawlenty
Newt Gingrich
Ronald Reagan (implemented a cap and trade system for lead in gasoline)
George H W Bush (implemented cap and trade for acid rain emissions)
George W Bush (expanded on his father's system)

You say this now, since the GOP has been feeding you guys these talking points since Obama got elected, I wonder if your opinion was really so strong before then.

Click to expand...

Speaking of monstrously evil conservatives ( :mrgreen: ), guess who said this:

"carbon dioxide is by far the most extensive and contributes about half of the manmade greenhouse warming. All our countries produce it. The latest figures which I have seen show that 26 per cent comes from North America, 22 per cent from the rest of the OECD, 26 per cent from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and 26 per cent from the less developed countries.

These figures underline why a joint international effort to curb greenhouse gases in general and carbon dioxide in particular is so important. There is little point in action to reduce the amounts being put into the atmosphere in one part of the world, if they are promptly increased in another. Within this framework the United Kingdom is prepared, as part of an international effort including other leading countries, to set itself the demanding target of bringing carbon dioxide emissions back to this year’s level by the year 2005. That will mean reversing a rising trend before that date."

Slainte said:

I don't like the simple idea of a cap because you need to have a minimum price for carbon, otherwise uncertainty will discourage business from making the investment. The carbon price in the EU got so low that here no one really cares about it.

Now, you can complicate the cap by having minimum and maximum prices and other special mechanisms within the cap, but then it gets too complicated and that creates more uncertainty, which subsequently discourages business from taking carbon reduction measures.

The main reason politicians like caps is so they can claim they are going to reduce CO2 by X% and, also, to help form the basis of international agreements; i.e. 'everyone does 10%, that way it's fair for everyone'. Which of course is total rubbish anyway, because everyone had different levels of CO2 emissions at the time they have arbitrarily decided is the baseline for reductions, usually 1990.

The best option is a straight forward tax. That is almost certainly what the Conservative led government is going to propose in the UK. It's simple and it will work.

Click to expand...

There was more political support for the market based approach of pollution credit trading (cap and trade) than a direct tax. I agree that a direct tax would more beneficial and fair, but if it can't be passed politically, of what value is it?

Catawba said:

There was more political support for the market based approach of pollution credit trading (cap and trade) than a direct tax. I agree that a direct tax would more beneficial and fair, but if it can't be passed politically, of what value is it?

Click to expand...

It's the best form of pollution control.

Seems pretty pointless to advocate a worse option solely because it is more politically popular at the moment.

If you have to compromise, then you have to compromise, but there's no point in denying what you think would be the best option.

Slainte said:

It's the best form of pollution control.

Seems pretty pointless to advocate a worse option solely because it is more politically popular at the moment.

If you have to compromise, then you have to compromise, but there's no point in denying what you think would be the best option.

Click to expand...

Where did I deny a direct tax wouldn't be the best option? What I've said is that it is the most politically popular method. Politics is about compromise.

Catawba said:

Where did I deny a direct tax wouldn't be the best option? .

Click to expand...

I'm glad we agree, then.

Perhaps instead of just giving into the cap and trade, halfway house, compromisers, we explain the merits of our beliefs to the masses and convert the infidels to our more enlightened ways...

Slainte said:

I'm glad we agree, then.

Perhaps instead of just giving into the cap and trade, halfway house, compromisers, we explain the merits of our beliefs to the masses and convert the infidels to our more enlightened ways...

Click to expand...

I am for pollution credit trading because it worked in reducing levels of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and other pollutants. While not perfect, it is better than no pollution protection. The industry prefers the pollution credit trading approch. Of what value is the perfect solution, if it can't be passed politically?

UtahBill said:

The major problem I see with this and related subjects is that too many people wrongfully believe that technological progress can be speeded up with mere money. Actual scientific genius is in short supply, despite the numbers of scientists working on our energy problems. And no matter the solution they do eventually come up with, there will be a new set of problems to deal with.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Money and innovation are not lacking but earnestness to try. The fossil fuel industry has the most powerful lobby in the world and nothing gets done because of them. The technology exists to cut our emissions in half and still maintain a viable energy economy, but the problem is that it's not profitable. Renewable energy does not employ people or make money and it's the reason why we went down the fossil fuel path in the first place.

For example, Dr. Tesla invented a device that could extract energy from the bare earth through telluric currents at sufficient wattages to power generators of small towns. The earth itself carries a current in any given location and it has stronger currents at certain energy centres. This is not pseudo-science. The technology exists to measure these currents.

Tell me, is the U.S. employing wave generators along the coasts? Large wind mill farms? Solar pannel fields (not the old school models, the new ones with compressed diodes inside made of liquid polymer)?

There is no profit in green energy because it requires little oversight, unlike hydrocarbon industry. There are many cities the world over who started with electric transportation technology built into their infrastructure, allowing people to get to work on trams and street cars. It was direct lobbying from the automobile companies that ended such economies. It happened in San Fransisco, Portland, Vancouver, and to some extent Toronto. You can still see the old tracks in the ground in many parts of the cities, now overgrown with houses and empty lots.

The extent to which we have wilfully turned a blind eye to the sustainable way of doing things is shocking, and it has all been in the name of profit.