Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WSJ: Kyoto's 'Capitalists' -- Big business becomes a lobby for CO2 regulation.
Wall Street Journal ^ | December 13, 2004 | Editorial

Posted on 12/13/2004 5:14:48 AM PST by OESY

...The Kyoto idea is 10 years old now, and no better for its age. The U.S. wisely chose to forgo the pact, as the long- term costs add up to hundreds of billions a year across the world economy, not to mention untold lost economic opportunities. The energy industry has heretofore backed this U.S. decision, noting that even Kyoto's defenders have admitted the pact wouldn't slow climate change....

What's changed the industry's tune at the broadest level may be the Bush Administration's Clear Skies program, a smart pollution-reduction proposal that may pass Congress next year. That program, about to be partially instituted via regulation, requires energy producers to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions 70%. But a natural consequence of reducing those true pollutants can be fewer greenhouse gas emissions. A "cap-and-trade" program -- creating a property right in CO2 reductions that can be traded for cash -- would thus allow companies to get paid for simply complying with other air-quality rules....

Other firms will benefit by virtue of their niche markets....

Finally, many utilities... know regulators will pass along any CO2 reduction costs to consumers via rate hikes. They also view public support of a CO2 program as a low-risk way of soothing environmental antagonists and "socially conscious" investors.

We have nothing against companies exploiting the business opportunities that regulation sometimes creates; that's capitalism. The difference here is that because CO2 isn't even a pollutant, and because no realistic program will even slow global warming, any market for trading CO2 emissions would be entirely unnecessary. There's nothing capitalist about lobbying government to erect a program that serves no other purpose than the redistribution of wealth, whether it be from one company to another, or from consumers to corporations....

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Russia
KEYWORDS: aep; argentina; carbondioxide; cinergy; climatechange; co2; conocophillips; energypolicy; exelon; johnrowe; kyoto; pollution

1 posted on 12/13/2004 5:14:50 AM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OESY
Finally, many utilities... know regulators will pass along any CO2 reduction costs to consumers via rate hikes. They also view public support of a CO2 program as a low-risk way of soothing environmental antagonists and "socially conscious" investors.

Fancy words; Total Bullpuckey.

The American public is hopelessly stupid if they fall for this one.

Like the Tobacco "tax" modest at first, unlimited presently, business, when cornered, has no compunction whatsoever with acting as tax collector; taxes without limit, if they can get their percentage.

Great! Stealth (useless) uncontrolled Kyoto!

2 posted on 12/13/2004 5:21:10 AM PST by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
We have nothing against companies exploiting the business opportunities that regulation sometimes creates; that's capitalism.

That's capitalism??? Sounds more like socialism to me....

3 posted on 12/13/2004 5:25:57 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

[The item includes the folowing:]
These executives are thinking green all right — as in greenbacks. The real story behind their conversion is that the industry has figured out that a U.S.-based climate program holds profit opportunities, while any costs can be foisted on the backs of others -- consumers, taxpayers or competitors. This new cynical approach to regulation is worrying, if for no other reason than that the quickest way to bad policy is a co-opted business community.

What's changed the industry's tune at the broadest level may be the Bush Administration's Clear Skies program, a smart pollution-reduction proposal that may pass Congress next year. That program, about to be partially instituted via regulation, requires energy producers to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions 70%. But a natural consequence of reducing those true pollutants can be fewer greenhouse gas emissions. A "cap- and- trade" program -- creating a property right in CO2 reductions that can be traded for cash -- would thus allow companies to get paid for simply complying with other air-quality rules
.
For example, both Cinergy and AEP rely heavily on old coal plants that are big polluters and CO2 emitters. But many of those plants are nearing the end of their shelf lives, and will soon need replacing with cleaner alternatives. Since a climate program rewards companies that make the biggest CO2 reductions, Cinergy and AEP would stand to rake in cash from a cap-and-trade regime simply by enacting their business plans.


4 posted on 12/13/2004 5:31:00 AM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OESY
A "cap-and-trade" program -- creating a property right in CO2 reductions that can be traded for cash -- would thus allow companies to get paid for simply complying with other air-quality rules....

Other firms will benefit by virtue of their niche markets....

Finally, many utilities... know regulators will pass along any CO2 reduction costs to consumers via rate hikes. They also view public support of a CO2 program as a low-risk way of soothing environmental antagonists and "socially conscious" investors.


To me the whole system sounds perfect, much better that any direct law to reduce pollution: it uses the market forces to reduce the pollution in those industries for which it is easiest and most economic to do so. Generally pollution doesn't create any direct costs for companies, but for society as a whole, so it doesn't sound too unreasonable to create some artificial product to cause some costs for those companies.

Altogether i agree that it is by far not enough to make any real difference, but you have to start somewhere.
5 posted on 12/13/2004 5:35:17 AM PST by wu_trax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

if this passes we need a worldwide initiative for private individuals to go out and produce as much CO2 as possible


6 posted on 12/13/2004 5:38:30 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wu_trax
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. GOT IT?

There is nothing about this that is worth a damn. Backdoor Kyoto is still Kyoto. Trading in CO2 is sheer idiocy.

7 posted on 12/13/2004 7:50:15 AM PST by datura (Destroy The UN, the MSM, and China. The rest will fall into line once we get rid of these.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson