|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:44 am
In the past days in Copenhagen a summit of nations was held, the main purpose of which to reduce pollution and CO2 emissions. The primary means of this is Cap and Trade. ( Emissions Trading) and the program is expected to put much of the burden from pollution on the third world, examplified by the "Danish Text." Does anyone else have more information or opinions on this?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:46 pm
Cap and trade is to nicy nice to the big industrialists. They are basically allowed to pay more money to pollute more. I believe in global warming, and that the Bourgeoisie are literaly destroying the planet by creating polluting industries and killing off environmentally friendly legislature and movememnts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:08 pm
Nokturnal Evisceration Cap and trade is to nicy nice to the big industrialists. They are basically allowed to pay more money to pollute more. I believe in global warming, and that the Bourgeoisie are literaly destroying the planet by creating polluting industries and killing off environmentally friendly legislature and movememnts. Er, that's right, they pay more money to pollute more. You're very happy to talk and talk of money grubbing money laundering capitalists who have coins for eyes, but all of a sudden that doesn't matter any more? Look, pollution will dig deep into profits. That's a big disincentive. The real trouble is how much yuo charge, and when you start to charge it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:04 pm
The Curse Nokturnal Evisceration Cap and trade is to nicy nice to the big industrialists. They are basically allowed to pay more money to pollute more. I believe in global warming, and that the Bourgeoisie are literaly destroying the planet by creating polluting industries and killing off environmentally friendly legislature and movememnts. Er, that's right, they pay more money to pollute more. You're very happy to talk and talk of money grubbing money laundering capitalists who have coins for eyes, but all of a sudden that doesn't matter any more? Look, pollution will dig deep into profits. That's a big disincentive. The real trouble is how much yuo charge, and when you start to charge it. I hate it when people on Gaia reduce themselves to throwing petty insults at each other, but its the sacrifice one must make to be able to go on to gaia and talk to their friends. Its all depends on what is more expensive, reducing pollution, or being able to pay a fine and continue polluting. If it was cheaper to continue polluting, Im sure you would continue doing just that. As for cap and trade, it could be better if there was no trade, just cap. More recourses should be spent on real solutions, not trading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:29 pm
Nokturnal Evisceration The Curse Nokturnal Evisceration Cap and trade is to nicy nice to the big industrialists. They are basically allowed to pay more money to pollute more. I believe in global warming, and that the Bourgeoisie are literaly destroying the planet by creating polluting industries and killing off environmentally friendly legislature and movememnts. Er, that's right, they pay more money to pollute more. You're very happy to talk and talk of money grubbing money laundering capitalists who have coins for eyes, but all of a sudden that doesn't matter any more? Look, pollution will dig deep into profits. That's a big disincentive. The real trouble is how much yuo charge, and when you start to charge it. I hate it when people on Gaia reduce themselves to throwing petty insults at each other, but its the sacrifice one must make to be able to go on to gaia and talk to their friends. Its all depends on what is more expensive, reducing pollution, or being able to pay a fine and continue polluting. If it was cheaper to continue polluting, Im sure you would continue doing just that. As for cap and trade, it could be better if there was no trade, just cap. More recourses should be spent on real solutions, not trading. I wasn't insulting you, I was expressing my continual disbelief of the way everything gets blamed on an imaginary class of people who make up a tiny portion of the population. All cap no trade is more or less a Carbon Tax. Maybe you should get behind that. Since the tax should in theory become incrementally more expensive until, at a certain point, it's unpayable by anyone. As for the C&T being more expensive than pollution. Nope, it ain't gonna work that way. Well, if it does, you'll still see limits to pollution because expansion beyond a certain point will still be too expensive. So on the bright side, even a sterile and token cap and trade system can produce rough, weak results. But that would be the fault of IR, not capitalism, since International Relations is anarchic and countries only look out for themselves and their own immediate interests, yes even communist ones, signing treaties and agreements is a tough business and not succeeding at it is hardly exclusive to capitalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:32 am
The Curse Nokturnal Evisceration The Curse Nokturnal Evisceration Cap and trade is to nicy nice to the big industrialists. They are basically allowed to pay more money to pollute more. I believe in global warming, and that the Bourgeoisie are literaly destroying the planet by creating polluting industries and killing off environmentally friendly legislature and movememnts. Er, that's right, they pay more money to pollute more. You're very happy to talk and talk of money grubbing money laundering capitalists who have coins for eyes, but all of a sudden that doesn't matter any more? Look, pollution will dig deep into profits. That's a big disincentive. The real trouble is how much yuo charge, and when you start to charge it. I hate it when people on Gaia reduce themselves to throwing petty insults at each other, but its the sacrifice one must make to be able to go on to gaia and talk to their friends. Its all depends on what is more expensive, reducing pollution, or being able to pay a fine and continue polluting. If it was cheaper to continue polluting, Im sure you would continue doing just that. As for cap and trade, it could be better if there was no trade, just cap. More recourses should be spent on real solutions, not trading. I wasn't insulting you, I was expressing my continual disbelief of the way everything gets blamed on an imaginary class of people who make up a tiny portion of the population. All cap no trade is more or less a Carbon Tax. Maybe you should get behind that. Since the tax should in theory become incrementally more expensive until, at a certain point, it's unpayable by anyone. As for the C&T being more expensive than pollution. Nope, it ain't gonna work that way. Well, if it does, you'll still see limits to pollution because expansion beyond a certain point will still be too expensive. So on the bright side, even a sterile and token cap and trade system can produce rough, weak results. But that would be the fault of IR, not capitalism, since International Relations is anarchic and countries only look out for themselves and their own immediate interests, yes even communist ones, signing treaties and agreements is a tough business and not succeeding at it is hardly exclusive to capitalism. They are not Imaginary, on the contrary if they were imaginary they wouldnt make up a small portion of the population, would they? They own the factories and the industries, therefore they are responsible for whatever goes in and out of their factories. Carbon tax would be ideal, and no it does not have to become to expensive. The money can be used to plant trees or even create technology that will help the industries decrease carbon output. IR may have some fault, but ask yourself; who is really pulling the strings on nations and governments? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:59 am
I can no longer be... I didn't see cap and trade going anywhere, either. All planting more trees does it grant them more room to pollute.
The only effective means is by making these thing growingly expensive, these "carbon buy-outs", government regulated carbon emissions per factory quotas, once you've met your quota, you get fined astronomically. Not a couple hundred for every X amount, but more in the hundreds of thousands range, possibly millions. That way, it is simply NOT viable to produce more, further, it may help stimulate the economy because there would be a higher need for maintaining trees and for human workers, people who emit less Carbon then, say, machines do.
I am firm on the government needing to be the ones to uphold this, which I'm positive they wouldn't. They may use it as a claim to help them get elected *cough* obama *cough cough* but they'll likely do nothing. All we can likely do is rebel, protest, and possibly sabotage production in many places. A cog in the American death machine....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:14 am
Essentially, companies that don't pollute as much are allowed to sell the difference to companies that do.
In the Kyoto Protocol, nations which signed that pollute below their 1990/91 levels are allowed to sell the difference to nations which are above said limit.
A functional cap and trade system should incentivize the upgrading or retrofitting of various emitters so as to reduce carbon emissions. That is, paying for the "shares" of pollution is stupid when you could just invest in your company and afterwords, maybe even sell pollution shares to pay for your upgrades.
A functional cap and trade system is nice in that it pays companies which don't pollute as much, or take upgrading very seriously, rather than a strict carbon tax, where companies which don't pollute as much only get the bonus of not paying the tax.
Honestly, I think we ought to utilize both systems. Allow companies to share back and forth their pollution, and incentivize that way, as well as creating an emissions tax. The tax revenue could then be used to make state owned operations greener, or green up public spaces. Of course one could also tax the profits from the pollution shares sold, if it was written in such a way wink That would have to be a pretty careful operation so as not to damage incentive too greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
