Comments on: USCAP “Blueprint” Chorus Sings Complex Tune to Half-Empty Caucus Room

By: Electric Utility Software

Electric Utility Software — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:46:06 +0000

Very interesting, I prefer the informative sites such as this one. There’s a lot of sites out there that leave out much of the information provided here.

By: David Ocampo G

David Ocampo G — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:21:59 +0000

The US Climate Action Partnership’s Cap’n·Trade-based Blueprint for Legislative Action amply illustrates the folly of participating in Europe’s Cap’n·Trade system. The European system has failed to control greenhouse gas emissions; it has not failed to enrich the well-positioned, well-connected. Frankly, it looks to me as though the USCAP’s Cap’n·Trade proposal is intended to fail; I cannot see any other motive; the folks intended are bright enough to come in from the rain, and they all seem to be able to read without moving their lips. Terribly discouraging.

Recently more increasingly gloomy reports on climate change have been published. And today, the economic stimulus bill was "passed" along strict party lines. All this does not augur well for visionary legislation. Meanwhile, the Internet yakuza are out in force. I wish I had an idea of a productive path.

By: Jurgen Hissen

Jurgen Hissen — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 04:20:29 +0000

Pew’s Eileen Claussen’s comments in this article are a great example of how the cap-and-traders want to have their cap and eat it too. If there’s banking of allowances and a "reserve pool", then it’s not really a cap, is it? It’s just a big pointless accounting exercise.

By: Jurgen Hissen

Jurgen Hissen — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 04:17:07 +0000

Mr. Fletcher, you seem to be implying that, were anthropogenic climate change real, the market would recognize it before the scientists. Mind explaining that one?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:41:11 +0000

Has Mr. Fletcher been living in a cave the last six months? The "magic of the markets" is what brought us the dot com bubble of 2000, the housing bubble, and the subprime mortgage fiasco. Next thing you know, he’s going to be recommending credit default swaps as the way out of our environmental morass. Not even Alan Greenspan–that Ayn Rand lover–is recommending that markets be given free rein anymore.And where is the "all data available" that he cites for denying the role of human influenced climate change? I guess it’s not enough that literally thousands of scientists have participated in the consensus reached by the IPCC on global warming. He would rather listen to the 0.01 percent of scientists who are still arguing the case is not proven.Jeez. Some people will never shed their ideological blinders. Sorry. I have no patience for this sort of nonsense.

By: Tim Fletcher

Tim Fletcher — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:50:15 +0000

This whole business of limiting CO2 emissions and taxing them or selling the right to produce extra is not only a huge waste of time, it is also just another example of the government deluding itself into believing it can guide industry better than market forces can naturally.
The whole notion that "global warming" is being caused by greenhouse gases made by man, at best, is a misguided assessment of the data available. It is a prime example of "bad science" where the scientist started with a conclusion and then sought out data that would hint that the conclusion was factually based. Unfortunately, those who originally published this conclusion made sure to avoid all the data that would indicate that their desired conclusion was not, in fact, supported by the data available. A closer examination of all the data available clearly indicates that man-made levels of CO2 produce no more than a marginal effect on our planet’s climate, but it also shows that our climate is determined by the level of sun spot activity.
What does that mean for the big picture? It means that all the time and energy being placed into a struggle to limit the production of CO2 will have no effect whatsoever on the climate while having an extremely adverse effect on our economy. Is that to say that we, as a nation shouldn’t be looking for ways to move from a fossil fuels based energy system to something more environmentally neutral and domestically produced sources of "green energy" technologies? Of course not! But these sources will take years to perfect and to bring to the public in a form that is cost effective compared to fossil fuels. Trying to spur the country to invent such technologies under a government mandated timeframe will have two definate results. One is that we will be forced to invest in first or second generation "green technologies" as soon as they become available regardless of the price. Once sold to the public, the industries that create the technologies will have less of an incentive to perfect them quickly since they already have their market and they had to invest heavily in the means of production to meet the demand that has been artifically created by the government mandate. Secondly, if industry is forced to adopt the new technology to produce their goods, they will have to make the choice of making massive capital outlays for a less efficient power source or pull up stakes and move their operation to a nation that is quite happy to continue using fossil fuels. Since many of these nations are sources of cheap labor already and are hungry for more development and industries to keep the standard of living rising in their countries, the decision for most industries remaining in the U.S. will be a no brainer…move overseas, at least until the green energies can compete head to head with fossil fuels. This exodus of industries will throw our nation into a downward spiral that will make the Great Depression look like the good old days by comparison.
If this nation’s industries are left alone to determine when they personally want to make the move to a greener energy source, they will be able to determine when the new technologies are efficient enough to meet their demands. If technology invented is not scooped up quickly, the inventors will continue working diligently to make perfections to improve the cost effectiveness of the new energy source. With each improved version, more and more industries and cities will make the investment giving the manufacturers of the new technology the necessary capital to continue their research and development to produce the next generation. The marketplace will determine the winners and losers when it comes to the new technologies as only unhampered free enterprise can and that’s the only way we, as a nation will make the change over without destroying ourselves.