CarbonTwin - Free Carbon Trading
The Free Carbon Trading Alternative
Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills
America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191), sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), is the latest and fastest-moving "cap and trade" bill introduced in Congress this year. All such climate change measures warrant careful scrutiny, as they would likely increase energy costs and do considerably more economic harm than environmental good.
Views: 14
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hadley gwendolyn on -
i would say ... yes
you are right..................
-
Permalink Reply by cristian billy on -
These measures would set a limit, or cap, on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. The effect of such a cap would be to impose rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas on the American economy. Each covered utility, oil company, and manufacturing facility would be given allowances based on past emissions or some other formula. Those companies that emit less carbon dioxide than permitted by their allowances could sell the excess to those that do not; this is the trade part of cap and trade. Over time, the cap would be ratcheted down, requiring greater cuts in emissions.
-
Permalink Reply by Fernando flix on -
Each proposal differs from the others on specifics: the stringency of the cap, the number and type of companies covered, the ground rules for allocating and trading allowances, and other details. S. 2191 is, in several respects, more stringent than other cap and trade bills. Its requirement that emissions decline to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020--even in the face of a growing population and rising energy demand--sets a very difficult target
-
Permalink Reply by Bobby fidel on -
Measures like S. 2191 that target carbon emissions aggressively will be costlier than those that give the economy more time to adjust to the energy constraints. For example, over the long term, energy companies may find ways to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions underground, rather than emit them into the air, or switch to lower-emitting alternative energy sources as they are developed. But most experts see these advances as taking decades--much longer than the initial targets in S. 2191 allow. In fact, these targets may actually complicate the development of longer-term innovations, as they will divert resources to near-term fixes
-
Permalink Reply by fred jhonson on -
Carbon dioxide is the unavoidable byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, which currently provides 85 percent of America's energy. Thus, it will be very costly to move away from this preferred energy source, and especially doing so as expeditiously as S. 2191 requires. A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050. Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050. No analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, but an Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050.
-
Permalink Reply by bret gary on -
Even these cost projections may underestimate the true costs, because they assume no unpleasant surprises. But the world has already witnessed many unpleasant surprises with Europe's ongoing efforts to impose a cap and trade program under the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Permalink Reply by hugh marco on -
In fact, European efforts have racked up significant costs while failing to reduce emissions.[5] Nearly every European country participating has higher emissions today than when the treaty was first signed in 1997. Further, despite ongoing criticism of the United States from Kyoto parties for failing to ratify the treaty, emissions in many of these nations are actually rising faster than in the United States.
-
Permalink Reply by jacob cooper on -
The European experience also shows the problem of cap and trade fraud.[6] None other than Enron's Ken Lay was a strong supporter of carbon cap and trade when the idea was first floated in the 1990s, saying that it could "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative." These carbon allowances that will be bought and sold have a value estimated at $50 billion to $300 billion annually, and the trade in them would be a huge new business.[7] Enron may be gone, but others ready to take advantage of cap and trade--often at public expense--are not.
The actual cost of S. 2191 is difficult to estimate--as America has never had to deal with such severe energy constraints--but would likely be very high.
-
Permalink Reply by Jaime Craig on -
By limiting the supply of fossil fuels, S. 2191 would raise the cost of energy. For consumers, cap and trade means more expensive gasoline and electricity as well as net job losses in energy-dependent sectors. Senator Lieberman himself concedes costs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. And as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, such energy cost increases act as a regressive tax on the poor
-
Permalink Reply by Alaina Dalia on -
The cap and trade climate bills is create a problum little bit but not harm full for our life.
-
Permalink Reply by Denzel Jerry on -
yes the climate security Act of 2007 (2191), sponsered by Senators joseph Lieberman will take cap and trade bill introduced in congress.
-
Permalink Reply by Jaylon Aditya on -
Imagine an America where a gallon of gas costs you more than $7.00. An America where your electricity bills have doubled or tripled or worse. An America where our producers of goods and services are punished by crushing new fees, taxes, and regulations, causing prices to rise for everything you buy and costing you your job. And then imagine the rest of the world carrying on business as usual, smugly watching America's decline and fall from economic power.
Carbon Trading at CarbonTwin.com is free: members exchange their carbon offsets for free!
CarbonOffset Daily
Australian Company Will Kill Camels for Cash, Carbon Credits
Northwest Carbon thinks that farmers and hunters who help rid the nation of its feral camel population should be compensated with carbon credits. Australia does indeed have a major feral camel problem — the invasive species is crowding out native ones, trampling vegetation, and rapidly reproducing. But proposing that killing them be redeemable for carbon [...]Carbon offset projects ‘having positive impact’
Voluntary offset markets function outside of the compliance markets and enable companies and individuals to purchase carbon offsets on a voluntary basis. The primary purpose of undertaking carbon projects– whether compliance or voluntary– is to … Continue reading at The Citizen Daily.Virgin-LanzaTech tie-up to produce low carbon fuel
The low-carbon aviation fuel, which will be produced in India, is claimed to have half the carbon footprint of standard fossil fuel. Virgin Atlantic was the first airline to fly a plane on bio-fuel in February 2008. PTI “India, which is amongst the .. Continue reading at Firstpost.Economic ambition adds heft to China’s carbon footprint
The growth in China’s carbon footprint is largely thought to be accounted for by its massive infrastructure projects as it prepares to join the ranks of developed countries. EDGAR, however, stresses the statistics are averaged across countries and that … Continue reading at The National.Boosting efficiency lowers carbon footprint
Livestock producers are under increasing pressure to reduce their carbon footprint, but farm statistics collected by Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) show reduced greenhouse gas emissions are a by-product of increased efficiency. … Continue reading at FarmersWeekly.Join Us On:
© 2012
