Comments on: Two choices, cap and trade vs. individual tax credits to ‘go ‘green’. which would be the most effective?

By: Herald

Herald — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:26:59 +0000

How about letting the markets drive it? Such as, if there becomes a point at which the initial expense of investing in green technology gets to the stage that it is feasible as a mainstream option (particularly as times are hard) to invest in it as a consumer, then so be it. Private industry is far more capable of producing results than the government is, and if there is a chance that commercial enterprises can gain from such advances they will pour what is necessary into becoming the leading edge of such a shift. That is the beauty of capitalism that is now being snuffed out before our very eyes. Those with money are getting it into safe harbors as quickly as possible, rather than putting it into such technologies at this time, for they realize that the gig is up, and this government seeks nothing other than to own all means of production and ascribe what it produces without concern for the long term ramifications of doing so.
References :

By: krollohare2

krollohare2 — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:14:59 +0000

Permanent tax credits to go green is much more effective than cap and trade.

It creates demand, spurs private investment in a green infrastructure. And its voluntary. Those who want it will benefit from it.

However, cap and trade, drags everyone into the mess, kicking and screaming at their expense ….. except for the "ins" who will profit from it.
References :

By: Montana

Montana — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:42:59 +0000

The Cap and Trade system involves trading of emission allowances, where the total allowance is strictly limited or ‘capped’. A regulatory authority established the cap which is usually considerably lower than the historic level of emissions.

Some high polluters have been buying credits from the low polluters. That doesn’t solve the problem of polluting emissions.
References :

By: imaxkr

imaxkr — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:26:59 +0000

The ‘cap and trade’ bill contains both.
The costs to businesses will be passed on to the consumer and the tax ‘credits’ that are included (tat supporters of the bill say will ‘offset’ some of those costs) will be paid for by the taxpayer (read consumer also). While putting in place rule that will make it more expensive for companies to compete worldwide. Which will move businesses, jobs and tax revenue overseas. This in turn will put a greater burden on the consumer and drive costs even higher.
References :

By: Thomas D

Thomas D — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:39:59 +0000

How about neither.
References :

By: gigreg13f

gigreg13f — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:20:59 +0000

Cap and trade, or any carbon tax credits for that matter, are schemes designed to capitalize on people wanting to go green, so as to take money from your wallet and filter it up into Obama's budget where he will then find a way to spend it on a special intirest program instead of paying off our gigantic (thanks to him) national debt.
References :

By: If you seek Amy

If you seek Amy — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:49:59 +0000

Nope – you are missing the point – green isn’t the issue money is – the dems want to tax us into oblivion
References :

By: Ron R

Ron R — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:09:59 +0000

individual tax credits involves every american to do their part.....cap and trade only benefits the rich corporations and forces the loss of jobs in the long run
References :

By: wyldfyr

wyldfyr — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:33:59 +0000

Cap-and-trade gives pollution reductions a value in the marketplace, the system prompts technological and process innovations that reduce pollution down to or beyond required levels. This point is not theoretical; experience has shown these results. An active cap-and-trade market enables those who can reduce pollution cheaply to earn a return on their pollution reduction investment by selling extra allowances. It enables those who can’t reduce pollution as cheaply to purchase allowances at a lower cost than the cost of reducing their own emissions. It enables all participants to meet the total emissions cap cost-effectively. And it gives all emitters incentives to innovate to find the least-cost solutions for total pollution control.
References :

By: skii_tyme

skii_tyme — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:09:59 +0000

That’s a theoretical question. Free markets have been proven to fail to do the right thing when it’s not as profitable as doing the wrong thing.
It’s sad, but greed has made government intervention an evil necessity.
Where are your facts on cost? Where are your studies on how people would behave with these tax credits?
Again, it’s just theory and ideology, which have proven ineffective time after time after time.
References :