Greenhouse Gases - Global Warming - Cap and Trade

Shit for brains





The process is simple. Yet for many people it is their church and their altar.

Odd really, but there it is - the church of secular man is global warming, and their altar - the government, the only body that can save us from eternal warming.

Brilliant they are. For over forty years the secular among us have searched for a cause, a purpose, a mission - something to believe in. For many more than forty years the religious have been mocked and denigrated as mindless and manipulated, as tools of a powerful church that takes and takes, demands their money, and offers transparent lip service to the weak-minded.

I do love their consistency. Now it is the looney left who worship at the altar of government saviors, ready and willing and able to save the planet from certain doom, no less horrid than the burning fires of damnation.

The religious sought to spread their word, save the many, even those who didn't want to be saved. In part because no one deserves (save a handful of evil-doers) to spend eternity in damnation. Today, the secular are going to save us all even if we don't believe and do not worry about such issues.

With no faith in religious values, they MUST turn to faith in science. You will not find anyone alive who does not place faith in science / man or religion / a god. And if religion is an emotional crutch for the secular, they must turn to science and if science tells them the planet is warming - THEY MUST BELIEVE it. They have no other option. Very much like the Catholic church and Galileo. They were locked into their belief and could not re-adjust it without the admission that a mistake had been made.

So back to Obama and his cap and trade.

How do we stop global warming (according to the secular)? We first cut back and then slowly cut out all emissions and bad stuff into the atmosphere. We are only at the beginning, so we start with cutting down on bad stuff into the atmosphere. How to do that is the question.

Those who do not place all their faith in science and even some who do will argue - you use our technology, you use our industry, and you simply erase emissions through the investment into new technologies. You do this as quickly as it happens. You encourage it by providing tax incentives, writing off capital gains taxes, eliminating red tape, and perhaps even underwriting a small percentage of industry to change over. In five years we could transform the Western world. The cost for this change would come from tax incentives, write-offs, and a small percentage of underwriting. The American people would pay next to nothing if anything, and emissions would be reduced. Rely on our business and industry to work with us to save the planet rather than to turn to government to make everyone do what they are told and what they are told is so bloody inefficient I want to scream.

Instead of a method that would work and would transform the Western world, the method Obama chooses (and other liberal useless sorts) is something that will not do anything but take our wealth and share it with poor countries. Anyone who disagrees clearly is not clued in.

I do not know exact numbers / percentages, but the process will work something like what I describe (in very simple terms):

Vanatu will receive a chit / credit for 200 tons of carbon emissions

Micronesia will receive a chit / credit for 300 tons of carbon emissions

Australia will receive a chit / credit for 900 tons of carbon emissions

US will receive a chit / credit for 10,000 tons of carbon emissions

Pakistan will receive a chit / credit for 200 tons of carbon emissions

Nepal will receive a chit / credit for 150 tons of carbon emissions


Now, suppose the US produces 12,000 tons a year. Someone - the UN one might assume - determines that 10,000 is the max. This is the CAP part of CAP and TRADE.

We are over by 2000.
We go to Australia who has 900 and uses only 500, and we buy 400 tons.
We go to Nepal who has 150 and uses 5, and we buy 145 tons.
We go to Vanatu who has 200 and uses 10, and we buy 190.

THIS IS THE TRADE PART.

You get the picture.

If we do not meet the maximum allowable (which we would, there are over 160 countries in the world and each would have a chit for an amount of emissions we could buy). Assume we don't - we would either a) pay more, and or b) be forced to cut back, and or c) deduct from next year.

However, Canada is busy emitting also so they compete for the Nepalese and the winner will be Nepal who plays the US off against Canada in how much we will pay for their emissions chits.

Meanwhile, the increased costs to buy Nepalese chits is not covered by the government nor refunded in tax incentives, it gets passed along directly to you - the consumer. In a way it is fair - you are the consumer of the bad thing. However, two approaches and the one where we pay more is the one Obama wants to follow.

Does it help?

Not really. You still emit 12,000, but you are buying up chits (and spreading billions around to buy up those chits) and spreading wealth to the impoverished countries of the earth all for a cause you have faith in.

Sort of like the Catholic church and the sale of indulgences.








hypocrites