dippin

Where did I imply, in any post of mine, that you are not "green" enough?

I am sorry, but this is a silly way of trying to sidestep the issue.

First of all, because if you do live "much greener" then the costs of this bill to you will be negligible.

Second, because in all these posts about 700 scientists this and that, you seem to do everything to avoid discussing the meat of the issue.

There are two questions here, and I've yet to see you tackle each head on:

Is reducing emissions a worthy goal?

I answer it with an unequivocal yes, because not only does the science support the idea that there is global warming, that human action has had a significant impact on it, and that it has serious consequences for mankind, but because those gases also have several other negative side effects, which you still have not acknowledged, which means that there is a social interest in reducing their emissions. Otherwise, we are talking about a private activity with socialized costs, costs that we have every day in health and food expenditures.

Is cap and trade the best way to deal with this?

To me, it is the best "free market" alternative. Other than that, we have two options which were preferred in the past: hard limits, which I don't particularly like because there is no additional incentive once you are under them; and "suggestions" in the form of available subsidies, which I don't like because it is basically a give away without a corresponding obligation. Our experience with cap and trade in the case of acid rain gases has been a great success, so I dont see how it can't work elsewhere.


Yet every other post is some former Bush aide column pointing to vast conspiracies and misleading "scientists."