California, Ontario & Quebec Work Together With Sophisticated Plan To Fight CLIMATE CHANGE!

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

Theres only so much subsities can do tho. Many jurisdictions already have most of their electricity from non poluting sources. And at the end of the day i think they blow the importance of energy production way out of proportion...

 

industries themselves pollute way more than a few plants so if u really wanna make a difference, encouraging companies to reduce their footprint can go a long way

 

wkth this system rather than simply taxing carbon, u make it a competition to who can cut their emmissions the most so that that most auccessful at it can make money by selling credits to the ones that fail

 

i think its a brilliant idea actually

 

i usually dont support many green initiatives cause they harm the economy so much. But this is a way to reduce the over-all impact to the economy while introducing a system that really works. And u dont need to waste tax payer money on subsities for this!!!

 

and if like u said its profitable to pollute, at least the government collects penalties as revenue which it promised to reinvest in green infrastructure, as the companies that do cut emmisions are benefited

 

its a briliant idea  

​Government intervention and policy has a dramatic affect.  The communist economies are directly impacted by severe goverment controls.

Free Markets are much more robust but lack direction.  For example,  ethanol from corn is mandated into the fuel supply system right now, without such laws, its feasability is too limited and wouldn't likely survive.  Oil and petroleum products however dominate becasue ... ... ... policy favors their poduction, so ethanol subsidies and policies create the market.  

Now, remove all government interference from either product and what happens,  the big money chokes out the little guy to gain a monopoly , which stifles a free market once again. 

With the cap and trade system being proposed, how much of a carbon 'signature' a company is reponsable for is subjective, who decides this and how is it calculated, somebody some where is gonna cry foul,  'polluters' are gonna say 'green' is cheating , its not fair, ect. ect. ect.  

To me the concept is logical, but the implemetation is just another layer of government that will create a tax on the pocketbooks of the middle class.  

Energy production isn't the only source of carbon emissions, but it is the source of 'all' production and by far the largest contributer to co2 into the atmosphere.  

Taking fossil fuels out of energy production will reduce refining pollution since there less demand for refined products. 

Less governemnt ... less negative impact on the economy ... more effective benefit to the envornment and the middle class.

[Economy 52,842]

​Government intervention and policy has a dramatic affect.  The communist economies are directly impacted by severe goverment controls.

Free Markets are much more robust but lack direction.  For example,  ethanol from corn is mandated into the fuel supply system right now, without such laws, its feasability is too limited and wouldn't likely survive.  Oil and petroleum products however dominate becasue ... ... ... policy favors their poduction, so ethanol subsidies and policies create the market.  

Now, remove all government interference from either product and what happens,  the big money chokes out the little guy to gain a monopoly , which stifles a free market once again. 

With the cap and trade system being proposed, how much of a carbon 'signature' a company is reponsable for is subjective, who decides this and how is it calculated, somebody some where is gonna cry foul,  'polluters' are gonna say 'green' is cheating , its not fair, ect. ect. ect.  

To me the concept is logical, but the implemetation is just another layer of government that will create a tax on the pocketbooks of the middle class.  

Energy production isn't the only source of carbon emissions, but it is the source of 'all' production and by far the largest contributer to co2 into the atmosphere.  

Taking fossil fuels out of energy production will reduce refining pollution since there less demand for refined products. 

Less governemnt ... less negative impact on the economy ... more effective benefit to the envornment and the middle class.

Well the implementation is another story. But since when is there a policy without its set of cons??? On a net basis i think this could work

 

subsities are costly as require higher taxes, to sustain an industry that woukdnt be profitable without them. Higher taxes to sustain something economical in itself is also bad for the economy

 

as i said, subsities have already resulted in a lot of growth in the energy sector, and in many places (like here in Ontario, Europe etc) very little electricity is actually from fossil fuels at this point so we already dont pollute much from that

 

and yes the air is cleaner. When i moved to Canada 14 years ago Toronto had way more smog advisory days particularly in the summer than it does now. But we still have some pollution, if u wanna go one step further now we have to cut emmissions from companies. Some manufacturers pollute a lot for what they make and changing to clean energy is gonna make no difference in that regard whats so ever

 

i dunno how well this is gonna work or what problems might arise. But trying to rely on subsities as the form to go green in my opinion is starting to loose efficiency. Its good to get industries started in their infancy stage but those industries have grown a lot. They can either compete or they cant but its too costly to keep subsidizing them as they keep growing...

 

raising the cost of pollution with carbon taxes and cap and trade migt be more effective at this point in raising green competitiveness rather than continuing to subsidize green innitiatives

 

they estimate globaly by 2020 green energy will be a $2trillion industry. If it still isnt efficient enough to compete with coal, batural gas, oil etc... Are we suppostu subsidize an industry that large??? That woukd be crazy!!!! Raising the cost of carbon would he easier and still give green industries a relative advantage  

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

I'm advicating a broader and simpler approach while reducing gov. interference. 

Cap and trade will require studies, legal examination, research, gov. gov. gov. gov. ....

They can re arrange subsidies and tax breaks without increasing anything ....while incurring less management expenses in gov.

[Economy 52,842]

I'm advicating a broader and simpler approach while reducing gov. interference. 

Cap and trade will require studies, legal examination, research, gov. gov. gov. gov. ....

They can re arrange subsidies and tax breaks without increasing anything ....while incurring less management expenses in gov.

Well if u want a simpler form, u could just tax carbon directly to raise cost of carbon and with that money use it to reduce business or income taxes to compensate

 

basically u wouldnt really be raising taxes over-all and causing economic pressure ud just be replacing one tax for another

 

ud raise cost of carbon giving green industries a relative economic advantage without the need for costly subsities and over-all taxation wouldnt rise

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

Well if u want a simpler form, u could just tax carbon directly to raise cost of carbon and with that money use it to reduce business or income taxes to compensate

 

basically u wouldnt really be raising taxes over-all and causing economic pressure ud just be replacing one tax for another

 

ud raise cost of carbon giving green industries a relative economic advantage without the need for costly subsities and over-all taxation wouldnt rise

​define carbon ... go thru every buisness and rate the amount they are responsible for ...  tell me how much just doing that would cost and how many people it would take to do so in a reasonable amount of time.

Getting any clearer for you?

[Economy 52,842]

​define carbon ... go thru every buisness and rate the amount they are responsible for ...  tell me how much just doing that would cost and how many people it would take to do so in a reasonable amount of time.

Getting any clearer for you?

Well thats up to them to decide. Obviously u have to come up with standards, but other jurisdictions do it they obviously came up with standards

 

for instance in BC they tax basically the consumption of different fossil fuels itself by the amount of CO2 it would cause if burned.

 

Gasoline is to burn so they tax it directly. If ur making a petroleum product, u wont be burning it all directly, thats where they gotta be more specific. And it was always clear to me i get what ur saying...

 

but these plans are always explained to the public in summary. Obviously theres lots of details behind it.

 

either way, the way i see it, we should do more to reduce CO2. While i think scientists and environmental fanatics clearly exagerate the issue by always making it sound like the sky is falling and were on the verge of economic collapse (i see very little factual evidence to actually support that claim), it does not mean CO2 rising at such rapid rates is healthy. Earth isnt accustomed to having to adapt to changes in so little time. So we ahould try to reduce our impact  

 

while i dont support crazy, overly expensive ideas, and i dont think trying to stop every major project like some fanatic tree-huggers do is the answer, i dont think we should do nothing either... And guiding the economy to a more green oriented way is the best answer

 

when u subsidize something they become dependant on it. We gotta stip throwing money at green industries which are starting to become to large for us to sustain

 

rather than throwing tax payers money at them, these carbon taxes or cap and trades might be a better alternative for now until green industries are efficient enough to compete with dirty polluters

 

i never claimed this was a perfect policy without its downsides. But there never is a perfect policy that wont result in someone taking advantage of the system, saying it isnt fair, deciding who gets taxed and not etc etc etc  

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

I can agree that the idea is reasonable , and probably effective over the long term. 

Implemetation and legal hassles, and big oil opposition doom the outlook imo.

[Economy 52,842]

​

​Sounds like a solid plan. I hope to see it expand.

​i guess we will have to just see

If its a bad policy... well, Both Ontario and Quebec have a long history of bad policies especially with economy so this wouldnt be a first

 

As for California, i cant really comment cause i dont know much about it

 

either way, while green innitiatives always put some economic pressure, id rather a system like this than expensive subsities that will keep costing more and more as green energies grow and we just cant afford that anymore so alternative ways to encourage green development need to be found and i think this could work if properly implemented

 

i guess we will have to wait and see

[Luc 4,776]

This has existed in the EU since 2007 or so, but the financial crisis made the prices for carbon rights 5x lower, so it didn't have an actual effect.