tuesday newsday - cap and trade

From Tuesday Newsday:

So, what is a cap and trade bill? It is a two-part regulatory system in which the “cap” is a government-imposed limit on carbon emissions, and the “trade” is a government-created market to buy and sell greenhouse gas credits.The question is not whether we need a cap and trade bill. How do you feel about this new bill?

First, let me say congratulations to the House of Representatives who narrowly passed the cap and trade bill last Friday! We're on our way to remembering that saving the earth counts as much as saving big business.

If the earth is to survive, we need to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Cap and trade it the most effective way to do this, and has the least effect on the average person. Yes, the price of gas may go up as a result, and the cost of other carbon based products may go up. Whatever implementation is used to cut green house gases, any efforts to try to save our environment, it is going to hurt someone. The question is, are you willing to take a hit in order to save the world?

This is not a joke. This is not something to put money into big pockets and take it from small ones. And for the most part, it will most greatly affect those who are doing the polluting. It says that if you pollute you have to pay. And by putting a cap on carbon emissions, companies who stay below that cap are rewarded by being allowed to sell their excess to those companies who don't.

This is a policy that should not be needed, but since big business seems to put their own priorities before those of humanity, there needs to be a way to regulate it. How does it work? From Cap and Trade 101:

Each large-scale emitter, or company, will have a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The firm must have an “emissions permit” for every ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforceable limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that the company is allowed to emit. Over time, the limits become stricter, allowing less and less pollution, until the ultimate reduction goal is met. This is similar to the cap and trade program enacted by the Clean Air Act of 1990, which reduced the sulfur emissions that cause acid rain, and it met the goals at a much lower cost than industry or government predicted.

And this will likely work the same way, meeing goals at a much lower cost than predicted. The government will make money by auctioning the emissions permits to the companies required to reduce their emissions. There is no effect on the average taxpayer unless the companies that are polluting decide to pass off their own penalty costs to consumers. In this case, it would once again be big business penalizing the taxpayers, not the government.

Because of that, big business supporters are trying to make the bill look like it will affect the average taxpayer, saying things like the U.S. News story linked to on Tuesday Newsday, where you could get that idea if you miss the line that the bill could "come in combo with a hike in investment and income taxes for wealthier Americans". It then goes on to detail those taxes, not the way the bill itself will work.

So, for me the question is, do you want to save the earth or do you want big business to run the world and let us wallow in carbon until it's gone? And for me, the answer is obvious. I want the world saved for my children even if I have to pay a bit more to use carbon-based products.