steve,
Cap and trade will be another govt disaster. Grab your wallet when Lieberman/Warner passes or any other legislation that is based upon politicians wanting more money to buy votes with.
I am not really crazy about cap and trade, because it can be unpredictable. I would prefer a predictable sliding scale tax on CO2 emmission, starting with extremely small amount, gradually growing over, say 2 or 3 decades.
Man made global warming is a hoax and John McCain isn't a republican.
Air and water pollution is not. Burning fossil fuels spews into the atmosphere all kinds of elements that are not good for humans, animals and plants. Then it rains on the fields, pastures, getting into our food. Then it drains into rivers and oceans, making fish potentially harmless for human consumption.
Then there is question of cost. Mining and transporting coal puts a floor under the energy prices, as long as it is meeting such a large percentage of our energy needs. Fuel for nuclear plants is very cheap. At some point, solar will become cheap as well.
As far as the effect on the economy, France is running largely on nuclear power, and it is likely turning into a competitive advantage for them, since the rising oil and natural gas prices has also affected coal prices.
Let me get into another subject, which I think is a nonsense: energy conservation. If energy was somehow finite and limited, yeah, it would make sense. But energy is nearly infinite. The only limit is our ability to harvest it. That's where our efforts should be targeted - harvesting energy at ever cheaper rates - either in form of nuclear or solar (where there is the most potential).
In that sense, while pushing the nation in direction of nuclear and solar does smell a little bit of "industrial policy", I am willing to tolerate it since:
1. promise of clean air and water is a desirable goal (for multiple reasons).
2. promise of cheaper energy is universally desirable goal
3. reducing the risks that a fast release of CO2 into atmosphere can present is a nice side benefit.
McCain's point (and mine) is that even if #3 proves to be meaningless (a false alarm), taking some measures to reduce burning of fossil fuels still makes a lot of sense for reason #1 and #2.
Joe |
