Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1137)	8/1/2008 3:34:33 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 86352

Also, all the cap and trade plans I've see from both parties have included plans to use the proceeds for either more government spending in other areas or to reduce taxes. In my opinion, that defeats the whole darn purpose. The purpose is to discourage CO2 production, if the cap is not to high, and if it is enforced, then it does achieve the purpose, and the "trade" part lowers the cost (compared to a command and control solution). I'm not a big fan of cap and trade, I'd rather see a carbon tax, but I'm not a fan of that either. But if we are to have cap and trade auctions or a carbon tax, than the absolutely worse thing we can do is use it as a way to expand government, and the percentage of economic decisions which are primarily determined by politics, which you plan of "invest it in alternatives, conservation measures, or CO2 reduction measures" would do. Under the right circumstances I might grudgingly accept cap and trade or a carbon tax, if we use the proceeds to help keep other taxes down, but if we are going to use it as a massive fund government directed investment I'll fight it tooth and nail.