McCain Says Obama’s Climate Plan Faces Tough Road in Congress

John McCain says that Obama's plan to allow polluters to purchase permits that allow them to continue polluting is dumb. Guess what? I agree.

What happened to Obama's plan to lead us out of our economic crisis by "going green"? That plan seems to have a chink in it already.

Discussion, anyone?

Article is here.

Emissions Trading is not dumb. Its how we and other nations have addressed other environmental issues like Acid Rain. In fact, McCain himself introduced Cap and Trade legislation in 2003.

Wikipedia has a good explanation on how it works:

"A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances 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 by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.[1]"

Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By adding a cost to emitting carbon or a pollutant, you incentivize the private sector to innovate and produce cleaner technologies. There is a true market failure when dealing with many environmental problems as there is simply never a market incentive to address them absent artificially introducing some kind of cost incentive or penalty.

That all said, I think that controlling carbon emissions through emissions trading is inherently flawed because of the size and scope of what is involved. I just don't think any organization, including the government, could possible manage such a huge market and that it would be just rife with corruption.

Instead, I think a carbon tax is a much better approach. By putting a tax on carbon, you don't create this huge market for emissions credits, yet you still create an incentive to reduce carbon emissions and innovate. Such a tax could be designed to be largely revenue neutral so that it provides an incentive to reduce emissions, yet its effect as an economic drag could be somewhat mitigated. Moreover, a carbon tax would require a much smaller government bureaucracy to administer than a carbon credits market.

Carbon credits/tax is nothing but bull****, it doesn't reduce the emissions, period. It provides no incentive, companies just pay the tax and/or buy up the credits and pass the cost onto the consumer

If we'd start moving towards nuclear and solar (both of which we can break ground on tomorrow) we'd immediately create thousands of jobs and be one step closer to solving some of our energy and environmental concerns.

My curiosity is how much acreage is needed for a windfarm versus a nuclear plant, in regard to energy production/output? Looking to the future, land will be in short supply, so is a windfarm a viable energy source in it's current configuration?

GottaHurt said:

Carbon credits/tax is nothing but bull****, it doesn't reduce the emissions, period. It provides no incentive, companies just pay the tax and/or buy up the credits and pass the cost onto the consumer

If we'd start moving towards nuclear and solar (both of which we can break ground on tomorrow) we'd immediately create thousands of jobs and be one step closer to solving some of our energy and environmental concerns.

My curiosity is how much acreage is needed for a windfarm versus a nuclear plant, in regard to energy production/output? Looking to the future, land will be in short supply, so is a windfarm a viable energy source in it's current configuration?

Click to expand...

I agree with you on nuclear, but the fact is emissions trading and taxes most certainly do work and have a long track record of working when implemented to handle other environmental problem. If emissions trading did not work in tackling acid rain then Adirondack lakes would be the PH of vinegar by now.

GottaHurt said:

Carbon credits/tax is nothing but bull****, it doesn't reduce the emissions, period. It provides no incentive, companies just pay the tax and/or buy up the credits and pass the cost onto the consumer

If we'd start moving towards nuclear and solar (both of which we can break ground on tomorrow) we'd immediately create thousands of jobs and be one step closer to solving some of our energy and environmental concerns.

My curiosity is how much acreage is needed for a windfarm versus a nuclear plant, in regard to energy production/output? Looking to the future, land will be in short supply, so is a windfarm a viable energy source in it's current configuration?

Click to expand...

Windfarms are very viable in certain areas, such as West Texas. Read about the Pickens Plan here. I think it's a good one.

Is McCain even relevant anymore?

disneydude said:

Is McCain even relevant anymore?

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but he is still right on this issue. What do you think about cap and trade?

danarhea said:

Maybe not, but he is still right on this issue. What do you think about cap and trade?

Click to expand...

To be honest...I'm not familiar enough on the way the program works to comment. I know a little, but I can't say whether I support it or not.

disneydude said:

Is McCain even relevant anymore?

Click to expand...

There's no Republican more popular in the media than a Republican certain to lose an election. Except perhaps one who has already lost miserably but seems determined to stick around much, much longer than he's welcome.

McCain may be right on the issue. But having him as a spokesman for the GOP on ANY issue only helps Obama.

:doh

disneydude said:

To be honest...I'm not familiar enough on the way the program works to comment. I know a little, but I can't say whether I support it or not.

Click to expand...

Cool. Let's debate the issue then. :mrgreen:

Seriously, though, it's a great issue to become familiar with.

The only way this is "dumb" is if the collected permit fees are used to clean up the mess that the companies cause. Until viable alternatives are created for mass implementation, this is a good first step. Companies should not be able to pollute without some kind of consequence... the U.S. is not China.

Orius said:

The only way this is "dumb" is if the collected permit fees are used to clean up the mess that the companies cause. Until viable alternatives are created for mass implementation, this is a good first step. Companies should not be able to pollute without some kind of consequence... the U.S. is not China.

Click to expand...

U.S. companies by and far don't pollute like China anyway.

This tax has nothing to do with the environment, it's like speeding tickets completely for revenue generation.

Harry Guerrilla said:

U.S. companies by and far don't pollute like China anyway.

This tax has nothing to do with the environment, it's like speeding tickets completely for revenue generation.

Click to expand...

Speeding tickets might generate revenue, but they also save lives by forcing people to slow down.

danarhea said:

Speeding tickets might generate revenue, but they also save lives by forcing people to slow down.

Click to expand...

For the most part the only people who drive slow are old people and everyone when a cop is around otherwise everyone goes the fastest speed most comfortable to them.

Slow drivers are more dangerous in my opinion.

Harry Guerrilla said:

U.S. companies by and far don't pollute like China anyway.

This tax has nothing to do with the environment, it's like speeding tickets completely for revenue generation.

Click to expand...

You do know that China and the U.S. are the world's biggest polluters, right?

China only surpassed the U.S. to the #1 spot a year or so ago.

Orius said:

You do know that China and the U.S. are the world's biggest polluters, right?

China only surpassed the U.S. to the #1 spot a year or so ago.

Click to expand...

I very curious as to how they measure such an unmeasurable thing as pollution.

I could be wrong but is it even remotely possible to measure how much one country like ours or china's even puts out. Taking samples and applying it based on population won't work because of all the differences everywhere in our nation.

I don't buy it, I read another news story saying about 60 billion (I think) of the revenue is going to fund middle and lower income tax credits.

It sounds like a revenue generator for pet projects.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I very curious as to how they measure such an unmeasurable thing as pollution.

I could be wrong but is it even remotely possible to measure how much one country like ours or china's even puts out. Taking samples and applying it based on population won't work because of all the differences everywhere in our nation.

Click to expand...

Here are some basics on the matter. A lot of it is judged based on how a country produces energy for its population.

Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it isn't true.

Orius said:

Here are some basics on the matter. A lot of it is judged based on how a country produces energy for its population.

Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it isn't true.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't true for sure, but questioning there methods of data collection.

I'm a voluntary environmental type. I do things in my life to treat our environment well.

Making companies pay more while we are recovering from a recession isn't a good idea at the moment.

I'd also say that a lot of our pollution problems are from individuals, especially people who throw **** out of their window on to the side of the road.

I can't stand that.