The Political History of Cap-and-Trade

[MorGrendel]

A history of Cap-and-Trade as written by the Smithsonian Magazine. I find it to be a very even-handed account (not really very political).
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/specialse ... c=y&page=1

My three thoughts:
"It's not a win unless it is in the double digets," has to be my favorite line from the article. It encapulates the problem in a nutshell. Politicians want change, but there has to be enough of it to take to the polls.

As Dan often points out, people vote with thier wallets. We know that industry will pass the cost on to us, so most of poor America will not be for spending more. Worse, we can not see the effects of CO2 and so we can not realize the exteral value. And as we proved through the coal peak, (and the gas peak of just a few years ago) consumption will continue to rise, even if the price rises. How much does price need to rise before we make a switch to another energy source (say like we did when we moved from coal to oil)? I'm sure the bioalgea-deisel guys want to know.

I think it is important to relize what is in the air we breath. An Industry's rights should end the moment their pollution they create effects me (infringes on my right to breath clean air). As people became knowledgable about the danger of lead and sulfer, laws were passed to limit them. Carbon emmision regulation will not take effect until we better understand the issue. As this topic is so polerized, I don't forsee any real resolution for at least 4 more years. I see it as something a lame duck Obama might tackle.

[Thomas Fitzcharles]

Good Day, Jeff.

Just a quick comment. We never did switch from coal to oil. Eighty % of our eletricity still comes from coal fired plants. On average china and india are building a coal fired plant every three months. Coal is still the cheapest source of energy. Until that changes it will continue to be one of if not the biggest sources of energy world wide.

Sincerely

Thomas

[MorGrendel]

You are correct. What I meant to convey was that an "alternate" energy source was not even pondered until we (England to be exact) reached a coal peak at the height of the railroads. Now, as cars have become a common form of transportation, we have reached an oil peak, and so we are looking for another "alternate" source. However, our history shows that we always consume more, not less. New energy sources are not "alternatives" to old ones. They are simply added on to increase the capacity of the grid.

The biodeisel guys just want an invite to the party. If I were them, I would focus on jet fuel and corner the market. Flying is still seen as an extravigance, but make it good for the environment and give the airlines a new pitch line and I believe you have a winner.

[MorGrendel]

Oh, and why we are at it, so what is the point of cap-and-trade - - - To reduce pollution so we can all live longer, healthier, and happer lives, right.

Seems noble enough, right.

So it's a real kick in the nuts when you have to read this:
http://realestate.msn.com/article.aspx? ... d=23329697

That's right, coal plant exhaust is being used to make the drywall. Why are we so dumb!