Cap and Trade – BAD IDEA!

First, let me say that I am all for protecting the environment. I think it is something that needs to be in the fore front of our minds and needs to be saved as a resource for future generations. With that in mind Cap & Trade is a BAD IDEA. It is suppose to stop carbon production that is suppose to lead to a decrease in global warming.

First, Global Warming. What global warming. Check the news. I thought that global warming was suppose to eliminate or make winters more mild. That is definitely not the case this year.

According to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th century mean (-0.02°F/-0.01°C) for the first time since 1982.

Temperatures were also colder than average across large swathes of central Asia, the Middle East, the western US, western Alaska and southeastern China.

The NCDC reported that the cold conditions were associated with “the largest January snow cover extent on record for the Eurasian continent and for the Northern Hemisphere”.

In some parts of China and central Asia, snow fell for the first time in living memory, the NCDC noted.

“For the contiguous United States, the average temperature was 30.5°F (-0.83°C) for January, which was 0.3°F (0.2°C) below the 20th century mean and the 49th
coolest January on record, based on preliminary data”.

Much of North America was also hit by the heaviest snowfall since the 1960s.

Second, Carbon = Global Warming. Now that NASA actually has satellites in that can take readings to determine the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, they have found out that it is not a build up of carbon that is heating up the Earth. Methane and the heating of the Earths water supply does more damage. So caping carbon output is not going to effect the imaginary idea of global warming. Carbon only stops 8% of the radiation coming from the sun. 92% of it hits other items such as Methane. (BTW, the biggest producer of methane in the US is cattle, sounds like we all need to go vegetarian. Oh wait, that would mean more people eating Earths resources. I thought that was a bad thing.) Only 3% of carbon emissions around the globe is produced by humans. The other 97% of carbon dioxide is produced by respiration and vegetation decay. So basically the Cap and Trade is trying to solve the problem of global warming by trying to reduce 3% of 8% of the cause.

Third, Cap and Trade is flawed thinking. Basically, companies have to pay the government to have the right to produce carbon emissions during production. So the government says they will be able to collect billions of dollars from this program. The industries that need to buy carbon credits will not keep the cost to themselves. Remember, 95% of all US electricity is produced by COAL power plants. So 95% of the US electricity supply will be affected and will have to purchase carbon credits from the government. They will then pass the cost on to the consumer in the form a rate hikes. So because of this, the government collects money, and the consumer pays more as well. Well the politicians have thought of everything. They are then going to give the people back the money they collected to help off-set the increase in rates. So, how is this going to curb carbon production? It is not. The company still gets its money, and the consumer gets a credit from the government so it does not affect them either (but the consumer only gets the credit if they make under a specific dollar amount). So how is this going to make people want to not product CO2? And remember, if we can cut carbon emissions caused by humans we are only eliminating 3% of 8% of the global warming issue.

All I can say is this. For those who make over the magic number, watch your utilities, gas, and other items skyrocket in price. (Obama himself is quoted saying that the cost of electricity is going to skyrocket.) Cap & Trade is just another example of how the government thinks it can take money from one group of people (businesses in this case) and give it to another group of people.


  1. Wow…that is all I can say really. Typical its all about the $$$ type thinking.
    Although…I can see how Cap and Trade would be "flawed thinking" to someone who denies the reality of global warming and climate change. Global warming, however, is a fact, it is happening, it is primarily man made, and we need to combat it. You should really watch\read Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth…you don't need to like it, nor do you need to agree with it (which I suspect you won't) but from what I see in this post you are in dire need of some well researched counterpoints.
    Cap and Trade may or may not be the best solution, but a solution is certainly needed.

  2. My point was this. Carbon is not the cause of global climate change. Carbon is only responsible for 8% of the problem, and only 3% of that is man created. So we are going to put in place policies that concentrate on .24% of the entire problem? The heating of the Earths water and methane are the number 1 & 2 causes, lets do something out them.

    I will not watch Al Gore's movie. There is no way I am going to even show any support for that man. For someone who is so concerned about the environment, he sure still burns a lot of fossil or carbon producing fuels. If he was really concerned, he would be vacationing at home instead of in Gaza.

  3. Woah a little reverence for Mr. Gore please….the man has dedicated his life to the service of our country and planet…not to mention he has won an oscar, a grammy, a nobel prize, and the 2000 presidential election….oh, and don't forget, he also invented the internet *chuckle, chuckle*

  4. Nice. Do you realize you cited an article from a *gasp* CANADIAN NEWSPAPER!!!! I didn't think right wing nut jobs cared much for what flows from north of the border.:)
    Actually I don't put much stock in links posted by people with agendas. I am certain that if I googled "carbon and global warming" or some variation thereof I could easily find several articles by well respected scientists providing solid counterpoints, but I have no interest in doing so. Nor do I suspect you would have any interest in reading them…for the same reasons.
    I was actually kind of poking fun at people that deify Gore. I do believe in the mans intentions, but he isn't really a hero or anything to me.
    That being said I find it a tad humorous that you try to belittle awards that recognize the pinnacle of achievement in various fields by applying the term "liberal" to them. Not only does it not apply in these instances, it really isn't an insult/negative. I could easily conclude from your comments that the best film makers, musicians, and those who harbor a genuine concern for humanity are "liberal."

  5. The label liberal totally applies. What is more liberal than Hollywood? They sometimes get it right, but more crap comes out of Hollywood than good political thinking. Just compair the political contributions of the last election, you will see that Hollywood is liberal by where they put their money. Obama was backed by most of Hollywood, while McCain was backed by the business sector.

    And I would have to label the Nobel peace prize liberal as well. If they give it to Al Gore because for his book/movie, instead of giving it to Irena Sendler. Do a google search on her, she saved actual lives.

    Picking a Canadian newspaper was part of the point.

  6. I pretty have little to no respect for Hollywood….wow, they get an award because they can act/lie, and their awards me nothing to me.

Comments are closed