By the way, I completely agree with the general sentiment that the government seems to be moving suspiciously fast on this.
imo opinion we need to look at "global warming" and its validity, in basic mathematical logical thoughts.
There are two sides, Global warming is cause directly by human carbon emmissions, and Global warming is a hoax and were just in a warm period.
from those two sides there are two possible solutions.
We move swiftly and effectively at reducing carbon emissions and invest wisely into building clean energy alternatives in order to slow the emission of carbon into our atmosphere that we do.
B we do nothing.
Now apply both solutions to both arguments
Arguement 1 solution A. We save the planet, we make the proper moves and over the years global warming ends
Argument 1 solution B we spend lots of money on infrastructure that it turned we dont need
Argument 2 solution A we spend lots of money on infrstructure turns out we dont need
Argument 2 solution B we dont nothing, nothing happens life keeps on going.
There is a whole array of details to go into and for the sake of typing ad reading ill attach this video
very interesting watch, uses basic logic and not a doom or gloom, just using basic facts and logic and mathematical probabilities as to possible outcomes
now as far as Cap and Trade to solve the problem. the way the economy has been going as of late this is the last thing we need another tax reform to add more money to the ever growing government and taking more money from the people in the form of increasing everyday expenses on living and doing.
there is a solution, i dont think this is the best one
Surely you won't mind going back to the post directed at me, and explain how it fits into the topic of Genacide's thread: the cost of the legislation, and how to manage it more efficiently.
Again, the debate about the costs assumes carbon emissions should be lowered. That is the topic of conversation.
You assume that carbon emissions should not be lowered at all. That's fine, but the economics of the plan are irrelevant to you, and so is this thread. You should start a new thread whining about the liberal media and how evil scientists are trying to increase your gas bill. I would prefer to keep the discussion with Genacide on-topic.
But yet again, I agree with the general sentiment on the climate bill. I doubt the fate of our planet is going to be changed if we allow an extra month for debate. Let people understand exactly what is going on................as long as the debate is properly framed. It currently is not, by either party. It's currently framed as the "evil nazi, stupid hippie" metaphor I listed above, and both parties seem happy to play to their stereotypes.
I would say cap and trade is theoretically the best way to reduce carbon emissions from and economics standpoint but my problem with it is that it will become another poorly ran and exploited program.
Theoretically universal health care would be a great idea - as long as ANYBODY but our government were running it. Same goes for pretty much every other social program IMO.
It seemed to work somewhat well for sulfur emissions. It isn't really a government program. The government sets the supply. Then they allow private businesses to set the market-clearing price.
If you buy the economics, then the only disagreement is with whatever the government sets the level of carbon output at. And that's a different thread..........hopefully. One I have no interest in being involved in.
lol @ shooter
One by one they'll all die. It's always good to look at the brighter side of things.
here is an excellent article which pretty well describes my position on the matter. no one on this site will read it im sure, but it does an excellent job explaining what "cap and trade" is really about.
The setup on Scribbs is actually very inconvenient to read. I read the last few pages...if I track down the entire article on Rolling Stone's website I'll read it in more detail.
Essentially, it seems to claim that because Goldman does well trading in pretty much every market they enter, they would also outsmart a lot of other investors by trading carbon credits. Besides the fact that the article works under the presumption that smart trading is somehow immoral, I must have missed the author's main point.
When you say "exploited", do you mean the fact that someone is going to make money by trading?