Sunday, June 28, 2009
Cap and trade
A lot of environmentalists are pushing cap and trade on carbon emissions. The idea is that all companies get a cap on the amount of carbon they can emit per year, and if some companies go over that they can buy unused carbon credits from companies that don't emit as much. I am afraid I see little environmental benefit in all this. What it essentially says is that big companies can go on polluting as they have been for years, provided they have enough capital to pay other companies for their unused credits. Sure, it might be great economically, but where's the environmental benefit? The obvious argument is that if all companies are given a limit on how much carbon they can emit, even with the trade provision we can limit how many tons of carbon dioxide go into the air. It's a sight better than what we have now, I suppose, but why not just cap the carbon emissions and insist that all companies meet them? Why only shoot for better when we can shoot for ideal? Because for some reason America isn't ready for ideal yet, at least not environmentally, that's why. We've been going back and forth on this for years now, and somehow we're still not ready. Why must environmental crisis always be the prime motivator?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Annoying isn't it? Having to say "I told you so", instead of having people listening to you before the crisis. That so many people are lazy and unwilling to change their lives until they don't have any other choices. That some people are so greedy they rather profit on our mutual assured destruction, whether it be economically, environmentally or socially, than change it for the better. And that after a crisis, some people still fight with tooth and claw to keep living their lives as they did before the crisis. It's frustrating.
It is, but on the other hand I'm kind of looking forward to it becauzse it won't be my fault!
Post a Comment