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.
posted on 12/13/2004 5:35:17 AM PST
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.
posted on 12/13/2004 7:50:15 AM PST
(Destroy The UN, the MSM, and China. The rest will fall into line once we get rid of these.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson