Planet 100: Cap And Trade Explained

[SuperTopTutor]

for profit. Not just one way, but TWO ways to capitalize on a fabricated lie, a giant hoax, that's generating billions of dollars / euros which ends up in the pockets of the 0.someting% of the worlds population.

It's another complete fraud brought to you by Wall-Street and other like-minded vultures that live for money and nothing but money.

[SuperTopTutor]

Cap and Trade is one of the greatest deception our leaders have come up with to deceive the citizens of the world into believing this would do anything to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, which by the way would reduce the growth of all vegetation on the entire planet and if that's the way to cool down the planet, than Love =Hate and Slavery = Freedom.

The CO2 story was fabricated by the international banksters to enforce a global tax on the use of CO2, and Cap and Trade to be able to buy and sell

[utoobsucks100]

CO2 isn't a harmful gas, so the comment 'we all know CO2 harms the environment' is a load of BS. CO2 MAY cause climate change.

The funny thing is that China won't give a flying f**k about how much CO2 they release so all this does is make it more expensive for America to produce goods, instead the production will shift over to China who will be able to do it cheaper.

So will this mean the USA releases less CO2 - yes it will, but only by shifting those emissions (and jobs) over to China.

[proadmin1]

@utoobsucks100 This is a little bit like being an alcoholic and complaining that you don't need to clean yourself up because there is a bigger drunk at the table.

[trexilll]

I can't tell whats more infuriating, that so many people believe the manmade global warming political smokescreen, or that those same people actually believe that voting a sheet of paper into effect can change the emission of CO2. Even the politicians promoting Obama's cap and trade idea admit that it would have little to no effect on emission: its just a "revenue generator" How blind has the American public become?

[proadmin1]

@trexilll Well, I suppose if it had not already been proven to have worked as a method of changing industrial policy you might have a point.

[trexilll]

@proadmin1 Proven, eh? Just like human-caused global warming? You're on the wrong side of the debate if you want to talk about proof my friend. Your communist green movement never has and never will go anywhere because its nothing but propaganda/scare tactics for politicians to play for money and power. Last time you fools got debunked on global cooling so you pulled a 180 now its "greenhouse gasses?" rofl, what's next, we're gonna run out of water? You people are pathetic.

[proadmin1]

@trexilll On water, what "people" are you referring to, I'm just a systems engineer from NJ, but I do have family in Australia, and their farm (some several thousands of acres) can't not support more than a few heads of cows because they simply did not have water. In corporate media america most people make a determined effort to ignore problems like food shortages or water supply issues, none of the real problems of scarcity seem even real - let alone something anyone should do something about.

[proadmin1]

@trexilll On the matter of CO2, I think back to the arguments against SO4, made 20 some odd years ago. All the same arguments - it wasn't real, humans couldn't possibly be causing it etc. This process WORKS, using a regular market mechanism, & provides incentives to be efficient. You get efficient, costs go down, externalities go down, & the nation prospers, I fail utterly to see anything other than a cost add for CO2 producers, who are inefficient. Penalizing inefficiency - how communist of me.

[proadmin1]

@trexilll I don't mean to suggest the current crop of politicians have the best intentions, I'm sure they are like others, just as self-interested as others. But, I see nothing wrong with promoting efficiency. Moreover, as the presentation notes, the BIGGER problem is that in 20 years or so, we're really seriously short on oil , on anything like the scale we currently enjoy, so vast levels of efficiency should already be in place, but most politicians fail utterly to highlight supply issues.

[trexilll]

@proadmin1 "You people" referring to those who believe we are killing the planet. The real green nutjobs. You don't seem to be an extremist, you talk at least half sensibly. I don't see how costs go down, when companies have to buy credit who gets passed the costs? Consumers. Whether or not Cap & Trade is effective or not is irrelevant. CO2 does not cause global warming, and so putting a C&T on carbon is naught but Al Gore and party wanting more cash. He buys carbon credits from himself, rofl.

[proadmin1]

@trexilll I think about it this way, as a species we suck BADLY at anticipating problems. Global warming isn't really the thing I'm concerned about, I figure about the time everyone agrees - oh yes - what do you know it IS happening - were fucked anyway. The more pressing concern - and this really kills two birds from my view, is oil scarcity. As we run out of LSC, we have to do most all of the same things - switch to solar , get hybrid / electric cars, use rail, basically get very efficient.

[trexilll]

@proadmin1 I'm not saying we shouldn't be efficient. I'm saying CO2 doesn't cause global warming, and if it did, humans account for dick compared to natural processes. This planet runs itself, we're along for the ride. And your family's water issue sounds more like a logistical one rather than lack of supply.

[proadmin1]

@trexilll I'm not debating whether the planet - in some pristine condition probably could absorb whatever we as a species produce, but when you add the cumulative effects of all our demands, it's like the old George Carlin joke, "save the earth"....wrong...the Earth will be just fine....the people are fucked but the Earth will be just fine...it's that.

[proadmin1]

@trexilll Nah, they were in a situation where they region they live in was subject to a 14 year long drought, it broke after a while, but it's that kind of crap, less particular warming or cooling in one area but rather that our political and resource demands work really well with our current conditions, and not so much when some river that is used by a billion people dries up, Pakistan/India, Sudan, Western China, even the Western US are shy of plentiful water, we just don't talk about it.

[trexilll]

@proadmin1 We're getting into a much broader debate now. I'll bow out here and say I agree with we need to be more efficient ESPECIALLY with our fuel consumption. But I still (and always will) oppose cap & trade, and the "human co2 production is causing global warming" hoax.

[ingesumadre]

what if new copany's emerge that stop production to sell theyre credits?

[slash12190]

It has worked, and if the global people agree to this, it shall help us curve Global emissions and therefor climate change, but only help, we need to radically change our consumerist ideals.

[trexilll]

@slash12190 Yes, to hell with freedom! Let's all abandon the American dream of individual prosperity and sacrifice our greatness on the altar of "being green," without a shred of legitimate proof behind CO2 increasing global temperatures! "radically change our consumerist ideals" Do you know how communist you sound with that comment?

[TheBlanco951]

wut a croc a shit. like they expect me to believe it.

[signal180]

I think its a perfect idea with the caps. More and more green ideas and invention will be brought up and introduce

[NoNameC68]

I think Cap and Trade is a good idea to saving the environment. I also think it's a good idea for the government because they will have more control over businesses.

If the government chooses how much each company can pollute depending on their size, that means smaller companies will struggle to grow (the less pollution, the less they can produce). This means smaller companies will have a harder time competing with big businesses.

I'm not an expert, so do tell me how this won't happen.

[NoNameC68]

@NoNameC68 When I said good idea for the government, I meant that it benefits the government and not the people. It would be a bad idea for us who want to increase competition, not decrease it.

[Nightzo]

Here in the UK, energy providers are penalised if they produce over a certain amount of CO2 equivalent emissions. Energy providers are awarded something called ROCs by the government for a certain amount of renewable energy they produce which they sell to energy providers that produce emissions over the acceptable limit. The energy providers that are over the emission limit buy the ROCs from the renewable energy providers as it makes more financial sense instead of paying the penalty to the govt

[Nightzo]

I think cap and trade is a good idea because the government acts on acceptable limits set out by climate change researchers and in theory the government can control the amount of emissions. Here in the EU there is emission trading between countries to try to control total emissions of the EU

[hitheresunshine]

I would much rather have the government put pressure on companies to begin using more environmentally-friendly methods of operation. Not use LESS of what they're already using.

I figure, though, that if we want the government to know that we want cleaner energy, WE have to let them know. The more pressure we, the voters, place on the politicians, the more we can get done.

[pwbpeter]

Just another way for the banksters to fleece the public again.

[djdnauk1977]

cap n trade is proven not to work, its a money making scheme to make the rich even richer while ignoring the real factors of pollution... if the government cared they would have started implementing greener solutions in the 70s when peak oil theory surfaced, but instead they try to turn it into a money making scheme for themselves that allows people to pollute/destroy environments. we need smaller local/governments with accountability or none at all, stupid (or evil) people rule us

[jmjfanss]

This is the most unconstitutional bill since the patriot act.