The 21st century indulgence

[elder999]

Seriously, you can't see the comparison? Big Don's not the first person to make the comparison between the selling of indulgences and the selling of credits for carbon emissions.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/15/granting-environmental-indulge

http://www.nickloper.com/2010/05/cap-and-trade-indulgences-for-the-21st-century/

http://real-economics.blogspot.com/2011/01/cap-and-trade-new-indulgences.html

Except that they're all wrong. The system is set up to generate solutions to the problem by creating a trade system. It's done so in the past for other pollutants, something that's conveniently forgotten in the argument.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Who sold indulgences? Buddhists?

Ha Ha Ha!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Except that they're all wrong. The system is set up to generate solutions to the problem by creating a trade system. It's done so in the past for other pollutants, something that's conveniently forgotten in the argument.

I actually wasn't arguing that it is or is not a valid comparison. I was explaining that Big Don was making the comparison, which shesulsa seemed not to be grasping. It seemed rather clear to me.

 

[billc]

Some thoughts on cap and trade...

http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...nthinker.com/2010/05/capandtrade_is_back.html

Presently, 40 percent of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions in the United States are
derived from electricity generation, 35 percent from transportation, and 25
percent from business, industry, and natural gas to heat homes.

So where will the 17% cut come from, especially given that (according to
U.S. census projections) there will be an additional 30 million people in the
United States by 2020? If the cuts are distributed proportionately, the biggest
blow will be to electricity production. Since 50 percent of our nation's
electricity is derived from coal, that industry and its customers will be hit
hardest. Coal plants are going to have to be shuttered. And what will replace
that energy resource? Nothing.

Some might counter that the House bill touts complex tax credits for wind
and solar development. However, when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't
shining, those two alternatives don't provide a watt of energy -- they're simply
enhancements, not baseload providers. Additionally, the Kerry-Lieberman loan
giveaway for the construction of nuclear plants -- which do not generate carbon
emissions -- is simply a lure to entice gullible Republicans to bite, because
the White House is not a fan of nuclear power.

Recall that during his January State of the Union address, Mr. Obama said
that America needs to be "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power
plants in this country."

In an apparent move to make good on his promise, two days after the speech,
Bloomberg reported:
"President Barack Obama, acting on a pledge to support nuclear power, will
propose tripling guarantees for new reactors to more than $45 billion[.]"



However, the proposal was a ruse. Many forget that shortly after taking
office Obama's first budget planned to cut off money for the Nevada nuclear
waste repository at Yucca Mountain -- meaning that the $10 billion in taxpayer
dollars spent since 1983 to ready Yucca for storing nuclear waste was a total
loss. Yucca Mountain will officially be zeroed out in fiscal year 2011.

 

[arnisador]

Except that they're all wrong. The system is set up to generate solutions to the problem by creating a trade system. It's done so in the past for other pollutants, something that's conveniently forgotten in the argument.

...as is the fact that eliminating all emissions is presently unrealistic, but giving people incentives--the cost of the credits--to make changes isn't.

Very different from Indulgences, where the Church had an unlimited supply because it was just a verbal promise. The limited number of credits raises prices--fixed supply, clear demand--which incentivizes novel approaches.

 

[shesulsa]

I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around sin lay-away and the justification of such.

Likewise, this sounds like a fancy name for putting off what needed to happen yesterday and getting to wear the halo regardless... doesn't seem to matter if it's religion or environmental commerce.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Makalakumu]

Except that they're all wrong. The system is set up to generate solutions to the problem by creating a trade system. It's done so in the past for other pollutants, something that's conveniently forgotten in the argument.

The difference is that all human activity could potentially qualify as a tradable commodity. Every human could potentially be trading carbon credits, even for the most mundane things. Carbon credits is the ultimate global economic management system.