FixHealthCarePolicy

RE
"Killing off America’s manufacturing sector with cap-and-trade"

Yes Cap and Trade is wrong
- whether one is for or against emission control


The issues are emission reduction and future energy supply.

Given the uncertainty of the effects of emission reduction on global
temperature - and given the expense of emission reduction - the key is
to engage in activites which
1. Are valuable in themselves.
2. Meet emission reduction targets with minimal business disruption and expense.

Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction, for 2020
typically quoted at 15-20% reduction, is achieved by acting on
electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles)
alone, since these 2 sectors account for nearly 80% of CO2 emissions.

This can be done with emission tax (for cars, allowing free choice)
and emission limits for CO2 (for electricity generation), without any emission trading.


The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:

1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all
else that's in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or
immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.

2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid
distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills
for consumers.

3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other
energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition
advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.

4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement,
steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated
countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are
not just more limited, but also largely local.


In 2020 (and again 2030), from then available evidence, either
1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no
value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes
in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or
2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which case America is on track,
and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures,
and can involve other industries if necessary.


Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial
loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state
guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect
on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and
predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business
continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared
expense and disruption.
This is even more obvious from having no energy efficiency regulation either.

Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions,
with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal
business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free
allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other
hand, together with extensive energy efficiency regulation on what
people can or can’t buy and use.

----------------------------------------
Emission Policy Alternatives
http://ceolas.net/#cce1x
Introduction: The need - or not - to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
2. Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax -- Emission Tax
3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea -- Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair
Trade -- Surreal Market -- Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs --
Allowance Trading -- Companies: Business Stability + Cost -- In
Conclusion
4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions
.