What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter.
That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
I thought that cap and trade was the market-based solution to addressing a major cause of global warming.
If we don't adopt a market solution, what would you suggest? Government regulations?
I suppose that we can pretend that fossil fuel consumption isn't related to global warming, then there is no issue.
Or we can assume that global warming will not destroy wealth, so there is no harm in it.
If we accept that there is global warming, and that we are causing it, and that it is doing damage, then we need to find a way to make the people the profit from a decision to use coal also be the people that bear the costs of their decision. That is how a free market works, is it not?
Well, not really. "Cap & Trade" would address an externality, right? In the absence of some sort of regulatory scheme/mandate, the market wouldn't otherwise "price in" the (alleged) costs of CO2 emission.
"Cap & trade" is made to sound "market like" in language and how it will supposedly work. But the truth is, it's really a highly-politicized, regulatory regime and, ultimately, a massive tax on the industry.
Personally, I don't think such a scheme is addressing the cause of global warming at all. We humans are so self important, aren't we?
It is absolutely amazing, this guy is coming right out and saying he wants to stop us from burning things for fuel and heat. Mankind has been doing this for thousands of years and Obama wants to tax it out of existence.
Where is the outcry? This is an attack on our freedom.
Next he will be telling us we should not eat meat and a vegan diet is more ecologically sound so he will put a huge tax on beef.
I'll come straight now and say this as well. How can anybody NOT vote for Mccain to stop this fanatic?
For the 1000th time. Mccain would not have been on my long list of candidates, but this socio economic engineer cannot be allowed near our Whitehouse folks... except as a tourist, and that would even be pushin it.
His court appointments will be with us for decades. Think, THINK!!!!
No. He is not a fanatic. That implies a wildness to his methods. Instead, he is cold, calculated and sinister. His ascension has been the product of a deliberate, methodical, unrelenting play on the sheeple, and they follow this pied-piper all the way to the slaughterhouse.
Are the biggest idiot currently posting on the Political forum?
You seem to consistently be easily misled by fox, drudge, etc. over and over and over again.
Obama and McCain are both for clean coal. Both are for cap and trade. A dirty coal plant would go bankrupt under EITHER candidate, hence CLEAN COAL!!! Good Lord!
From the very same SF Chronicle
Obama: "?But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can?t, then we?re gonna still be working on alternatives."
(see he's FOR clean coal!!!)
McCain's May 12 speech on climate change talking about (GASP!) Cap and trade!: "And the same approach that brought a decline in sulfur dioxide emissions can have an equally dramatic and permanent effect on carbon emissions. Instantly, automakers, coal companies, power plants, and every other enterprise in America would have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions, because when they go under those limits they can sell the balance of permitted emissions for cash. As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy. . . A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy."
the exact same position.
Now just look at HOW STUPID Zap sounds here: "How can anyone consider voting for this man?"
And Dribulus: "I'll come straight now and say this as well. How can anybody NOT vote for Mccain to stop this fanatic?" Hilariously stupid.
The scary part is your entire world view is just as fraudulent and phony, based on lies and mistruths, by folks who are anxious to mislead you, and whom you'll never hold accountable.
Idiot. The comparison McCain: For cap and trade and thus clean coal (dirty coal goes bankrupt) and believes in man-made global warming. versus Obama: For cap and trade and thus clean coal (dirty coal goes bankrupt) and believes in man-made global warming.
My God! if those coal miners knew this, plus the bigger tax cut they'd get with Obama, is there any doubt they'd vote for Obama?