Grist - Comment Feed for McCain rails against Obama cap-and-trade plan

Comment #1 by GreyFlcn

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:49:08 -0700

So basically his argument is that we need to give permits out for free, or else they will actually cost money.

So basically the pollution is free now.
What McCain wants is to keep the pollution free.
Since polluting our environment is a Constitutionally protected right.....

Comment #2 by megan.c.lynch

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:46:44 -0700

How is giving credits away going to solve anything? If polluters don't have to pay now and they don't have to pay later, what exactly is their motivation to lessen their company's impact?

I love politicians...

Comment #3 by Raisin'Hell

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:57:15 -0700

McCain, as usual just wants to continue corporate welfare. The cost of pollution has been passed onto the public in a major way since the Industrial Revolution, why stop now? His shameless pandering to the far right, calling Obama's plan, where the polluters would pay for the damage they cause, a tax, shows how utterly bereft of morality he is. Aren't you glad he's not our president? Let's hope Arizona (where there's at least a fair possibility for a profitable solar industry, dontcha think?) voters wise up in 2010 and retire him.

Comment #4 by sanderson508

Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:54:15 -0700

Wants bipartisanship as long as everyone does what he wants. Typical republican thinking, support big corporations and the "trickle down" will save us all. Everyone knows this just doesn't work, we played that for eight years and look where it got us. Republicans........quite finding fault and find an answer that hasn't already been proven wrong!

Comment #5 by LogicRules

Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:40:02 -0700

President Obama’s stated purpose in charging for carbon credits was to raise money for his health care plan (or as he says, a down-payment). To make the idea more palatable, his talking points include the idea that the money would be returned to the consumer in the form of tax rebates. However, in order to collect any money, only people below the poverty level will get anything back. If you are over the poverty level, your electric bills will likely double or more in the next few years. Business would be hit especially hard since they use so much energy (raising the cost of all goods and services).

It is not necessary to charge for carbon credits in order to reduce emissions, and there is no “corporate welfare” involved. Carbon credits would be given out each year, but each year there would be fewer of them. It would therefore be necessary for generators to reduce their carbon emissions each year, which can only be done at a huge cost to the electric utility and consumer. Any carbon tax or permit cost would be added to that cost.

The unintended consequences of the cap and tax plan would be to force businesses to relocate to some country where they could operate more cheaply. Why? Because they would not be able to compete if their energy cost is twice what it is in, say, China, India or Brazil.

The original reason for a cap and trade plan was to reduce CO2 emissions. That has become secondary to raising money for social programs. Ideally, we should reduce CO2 at no additional cost to anyone. Piling on a tax on top of an already expensive goal is not beneficial