You misunderstand my position. - Edit 1
Before modification by Tom at 14/10/2009 05:27:20 PM
I am not arguing that we should not be investing in clean, renewable energy to remove our dependence on fossil fuels. I am not arguing against increasing, incrementally, fuel efficiency standards.
The problem with most of the proposals that have been made in the name of "fighting global warming" are proposals that PENALIZE most people for using hydrocarbons at a time when the renewable, clean energy is still not available for most. "Cap and trade" and forcing businesses to be "carbon neutral" by buying some fictitious credits simply increases the cost of everything without showing how it is going to lead to the energy.
How can a company be "carbon neutral" if it has an on-site power plant and it's making, let's say, $10 million a year in revenue before taxes? We're going to make the company build a solar generator for about $200 million? That's prohibitively expensive and, oh, by the way, that situation is fairly common and NOT hypothetical, and those numbers are actual numbers.
"Cap and trade" for a company of that size is going to therefore simply mean an increased cost of doing business in America. The company can either lay people off or outsource to a less expensive nation like Indonesia or China. For a company of 200-300 employees, that's going to mean most likely about 1000 people depending on the facility when families are added in are going to lose their source of sustenance.
Try telling the tens of thousands of American workers and their families who will be out of a job in an already steep recession that it's better to "pay up front" for a global warming issue that may, just MAY, be radically overstated.
The problem with most of the proposals that have been made in the name of "fighting global warming" are proposals that PENALIZE most people for using hydrocarbons at a time when the renewable, clean energy is still not available for most. "Cap and trade" and forcing businesses to be "carbon neutral" by buying some fictitious credits simply increases the cost of everything without showing how it is going to lead to the energy.
How can a company be "carbon neutral" if it has an on-site power plant and it's making, let's say, $10 million a year in revenue before taxes? We're going to make the company build a solar generator for about $200 million? That's prohibitively expensive and, oh, by the way, that situation is fairly common and NOT hypothetical, and those numbers are actual numbers.
"Cap and trade" for a company of that size is going to therefore simply mean an increased cost of doing business in America. The company can either lay people off or outsource to a less expensive nation like Indonesia or China. For a company of 200-300 employees, that's going to mean most likely about 1000 people depending on the facility when families are added in are going to lose their source of sustenance.
Try telling the tens of thousands of American workers and their families who will be out of a job in an already steep recession that it's better to "pay up front" for a global warming issue that may, just MAY, be radically overstated.