Rasmussen Report: Just 24% Know What Cap and Trade is

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The gap between Capitol Hill and Main Street is huge when it comes to the so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation being considered in Congress. So wide, in fact, that few voters even know what the proposed legislation is all about.

Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29%) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17% think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30%) have no idea.

Democrats are pushing the legislation on Capitol Hill, but Democrats around the country are a bit less likely than Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party to know that the concept has something to do with the environment. This helps explain why some Democratic pollsters have advised the president to back away from the term cap-and-trade to describe what he wants to accomplish.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...know_what_it_is

[GaryC 7]

If it were 75% rather than 24% cap and trade wouldn't stand a chance.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If it were 75% rather than 24% cap and trade wouldn't stand a chance.

Based on what, Gary? Other polls have shown an overwhelming number of Americans believe that Global Warming is a serious concern that we need to address through governmental policy. We already have the EPA declaring CO2 emissions as a public health threat.

[GaryC 7]

If it were 75% rather than 24% cap and trade wouldn't stand a chance.

Based on what, Gary? Other polls have shown an overwhelming number of Americans believe that Global Warming is a serious concern that we need to address through governmental policy. We already have the EPA declaring CO2 emissions as a public health threat.

Not if they knew the truth about how much it will cost and the corruption that will come about because of it. Not to mention the fact that in Europe CO2 has gone up since starting ####### and trade. All they know is that it sounds good and feels good.

[scandal 951]

Not if they knew the truth about how much it will cost and the corruption that will come about because of it. Not to mention the fact that in Europe CO2 has gone up since starting ####### and trade. All they know is that it sounds good and feels good.

Ok, now that part makes no sense at all. We're talking about atmospheric CO2 which is distributed throughout the upper atmosphere of the entire planet. It's not localized over a single continent, Europe or otherwise. Of course global CO2 levels are rising - that's the whole point!!

[GaryC 7]

Is Europe Leading or Losing on CO2 Emissions?

by Mark Scott

The bureaucrats that run the European Union's day-to-day business aren't known for taking risks. Yet back in 2005, when they devised the EU Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), these pencil pushers gambled that a cap-and-trade scheme would help cut the EU's carbon dioxide emissions. Now, three years on, the environmental benefits from the EU ETS remain unclear: The continent's CO2 output actually rose 1.1% last year.

Moreover, its impact on the European economy is far from clear. Optimists think Europe's early adoption of a cap-and-trade CO2 market will give local companies a competitive advantage when other regions of the world finally start trading carbon. Under the EU ETS, companies are given a set number of carbon allowances (the "cap" in cap and trade), which then can be bought and sold on the open market. In theory, this provides a financial incentive for firms to become more energy efficient, giving European businesses a head start in cutting overhead just as fuel costs begin to hit company profits.

This goal will be put to the test ahead of next year's U.N.-backed meeting in Copenhagen to negotiate a global agreement on climate change. For Europeans, the summit holds particular importance. The continent has banked its financial future—and moral authority—on creating a low-carbon economy. This gamble's efficacy now depends on the likes of China, India, and the U.S. deciding whether to embrace carbon trading. "Copenhagen will play a big part in showing that Europe's creation of a cap-and-trade carbon market will pay off," says Mark Spelman, global head of strategy at consultancy Accenture (ACN).

Steeper Energy Prices Loom

If, however, a global agreement for CO2 isn't reached, many energy-intensive industries reckon their European businesses will be the only one to shoulder the higher costs needed to cut emissions. The extra financial burden eventually could send European jobs overseas and increase costs there.

A global agreement on carbon is even more urgent for European companies after Brussels outlined stricter CO2 cuts (BusinessWeek.com, 1/23/08). Based on unilateral carbon reductions of 20% by 2020 (rising to 30% if other countries agree to similar reductions), the cap-and-trade agreement is expected to double the cost of offsetting a metric ton of carbon, to $63 by the end of the next decade. That equates to a roughly $15-per-megawatt-hour increase in electricity prices as energy firms pass on extra CO2 costs to end-users, according to Britain's Carbon Trust, a government-backed research-and-advisory group.

With the tougher cuts coming into force from 2013 onwards, companies have little choice other than to increase energy efficiency, according to Karsten Neuhoff, a senior research associate at the University of Cambridge. European utilities already have invested billions of dollars in wind power and solar energy to move away from fossil fuels. Rising energy prices also have led steelmakers and oil refiners to invest in more efficient technologies such as less-intensive smelting processes. "High carbon costs aren't a concern for European industry," says Neuhoff. "They provide a great business opportunity for those willing to take it."

A Competitive Disadvantage?

This eco-friendly investment could well pay dividends for Europe if and when a worldwide cap-and-trade CO2 agreement is reached. Most companies trading under the EU ETS have global operations, says Cambridge's Neuhoff, and these benefit from exporting energy-efficient practices internationally. "It focuses research and development to optimize practices within the EU that then can be used overseas," he says.

That argument receives short shrift from European industry groups. They fear the rising cost of CO2 will add billions of dollars to operating costs and lead thousands of workers to lose their jobs. According to the German Cement Industry Federation, their members' costs will rise $1.4 billion (BusinessWeek.com, 7/18/08) due to expenses linked to the EU ETS. That represents almost half of the sector's current annual revenues and could give foreign rivals an economic edge.

Others warn that future investment could grind to a halt if the cost to offset carbon becomes prohibitively expensive. Tim Warham, London-based assistant director in Deloitte's economics consulting team, says firms in energy-intensive sectors such as cement and chemical processing may wind down European plants in favor of facilities in regions that don't charge for CO2 emissions. "If there's a difference in overall [operating] costs," he says, "Europe could be handing a competitive advantage to others."

This debate will gather speed ahead of next year's global climate change conference in Copenhagen, whose outcome will be critical for the EU. Having created a cap-and-trade CO2 market, European business has jumped ahead of rivals in adapting to the low-carbon economy. The question is whether others will follow, or leave the continent's companies to meet spiraling carbon costs on their own.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/cont...paign_id=rss_eu

Not if they knew the truth about how much it will cost and the corruption that will come about because of it. Not to mention the fact that in Europe CO2 has gone up since starting ####### and trade. All they know is that it sounds good and feels good.

Ok, now that part makes no sense at all. We're talking about atmospheric CO2 which is distributed throughout the upper atmosphere of the entire planet. It's not localized over a single continent, Europe or otherwise. Of course global CO2 levels are rising - that's the whole point!!

The CO2 produced from Europe has gone up. In other words, Cap and Trade hasn't done a thing.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The rate of increase is the point. Has the rate of increase relative to the rate of economic growth slowed down or not?

[GaryC 7]

The rate of increase is the point. Has the rate of increase relative to the rate of economic growth slowed down or not?

Since the goal was to reduce the output by 20% and it still went up then isn't THAT the point?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The rate of increase is the point. Has the rate of increase relative to the rate of economic growth slowed down or not?

Since the goal was to reduce the output by 20% and it still went up then isn't THAT the point?

That's a retarded goal. Cap and trade (and mind you, I'm not a big supporter) should be judged by whether they can reduce the rate of growth relative to the rate of economic growth. JMHO.

[scandal 951]

The rate of increase is the point. Has the rate of increase relative to the rate of economic growth slowed down or not?

Since the goal was to reduce the output by 20% and it still went up then isn't THAT the point?

If we're going to go further, and I would be interested to do so, let's get some citations for these stats.

The 20% reduction you cite - over what timeframe? As I understand things the idea was to return back to 1990s emission levels by the year 2020 or some such. In other words, we'll reduce from current levels back to past levels. But not overnight - over a decade or two.

I can start googling for the citations, but if you have facts you want to share, I'd be glad to see.

One thing I do know is the trading company where I work is active on the CCE and CCFE (Chicago Climate Exchange, Chicago Climate Futures Excange). Trading activity is picking up. This stuff is for real, as far as the traders are concerned.

[GaryC 7]

The rate of increase is the point. Has the rate of increase relative to the rate of economic growth slowed down or not?

Since the goal was to reduce the output by 20% and it still went up then isn't THAT the point?

That's a retarded goal. Cap and trade (and mind you, I'm not a big supporter) should be judged by whether they can reduce the rate of growth relative to the rate of economic growth. JMHO.

It's a flawed premise to begin with. If company X puts out 100 tons of carbon and company Y puts out 10 tons of carbon all company X has to do is buy 90 tons of credits and continue on. The costs are handed down to the consumer and the total output remains the same. Then you have company Z acting as the broker between Company X and Y and makes money from both ends. All it does is make a new market and sticks it to the consumer. When it becomes no longer cost effective for Company X to buy offsets then they just move the manufacturing to a third world country without cap and trade and continues to emit CO2.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

If it were 75% rather than 24% cap and trade wouldn't stand a chance.

Based on what, Gary? Other polls have shown an overwhelming number of Americans believe that Global Warming is a serious concern that we need to address through governmental policy. We already have the EPA declaring CO2 emissions as a public health threat.

Not if they knew the truth about how much it will cost and the corruption that will come about because of it. Not to mention the fact that in Europe CO2 has gone up since starting ####### and trade. All they know is that it sounds good and feels good.

DING DING DING

[Pooky 3,795]

Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues.

Well, that's probably a higher percentage of the populace that knows what the cap-and-trade proposal is about than the percentage of Senators and Congressmen that have actually read the proposed legislation - by about 23.5%.

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm

Energy time bomb is still ticking

The idea that the Obama Administration can successfully tax fossil fuel output with its “cap and trade” plan to pay for clean energy programs (and other government largess) is highly dubious at best. We are in a flat-out race with global oil depletion, and we are currently losing. The International Energy Agency noted that we have to discover the equivalent of a new Kuwait every year in order to keep up with current global oil consumption of 87 million barrels per day. With a global depletion rate now estimated at 9.1% annually by the IEA, our new discoveries are not coming close to keeping up. In addition, trillions of dollars will be necessary to rebuild the rusting infrastructure of the global oil industry. By taxing oil, natural gas and coal production, where are the incentives to go out and find more desperately needed energy?

We are facing an energy crisis within the next decade, as a growing developing world will eventually drive demand well beyond available supply. The “Cap and Trade” plan, while politically attractive, will just lead us into the crisis at a faster pace. In addition, China and India have no plans to tax fossil fuel output, so we are ultimately taxing ourselves into a box, where our cost of energy rises and our options are limited. As I have written about previously, wind and solar make up only a tiny fraction of our energy production today, and nuclear is off the table in Washington. When the inevitable crisis arrives, politicians will be shocked, shocked as the cost of energy skyrockets. They will blame the greedy oil companies and schedule hearings. But they will be years too late to stop the damage.

The next energy crisis seems sadly inevitable, but may still be a number of years down the road with a little luck. Given this scenario plays out, it would make sense to invest in world-class energy companies when the price of oil is still at recession levels.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For anyone interested in understanding the basics of Cap and Trade, click here. The U.S. needs to join the rest of the industrialized world on this.

The Advantages

Companies in different industries face dramatically different costs to lower their emissions. A market-based approach allows companies to take carbon-reducing measures that everyone can afford. "The private sector is better at developing diversified approaches to manage the costs and risks [of reducing emissions]," says Jesse Fahnestock, spokesman at Swedish power company Vattenfall, which is a member of a global Combat Climate Change coalition.

Reducing emissions and lowering energy consumption is usually good for the core business. For example, in 1997 British energy company BP committed to bring its emissions down to 10 percent below 1990 levels. After taking simple steps like tightening valves, changing light bulbs, and improving operations efficiency, BP implemented an internal cap-and-trade scheme and met its emissions goal by the end of 2001 — nine years ahead of schedule. Using the combined C0₂ reduction strategy, BP reported saving about $650 million.

Then there's the long-term investment angle: Buying into the carbon market boom now suggests significant dividends later on. Carbon credits are relatively cheap now, but their value will likely rise, giving companies another reason to participate.

....

It's not just governments who are demanding emissions compliance — consumers want it, too. The commitment a company makes to curb its pollutant output is an increasingly public aspect of strategy. More and more employees are taking these factors into account when deciding where to work. A recent study from MonsterTRAK found that 80 percent of young professionals want their work to impact the environment in a positive way, and 92 percent prefer to work for an environmentally friendly company.

http://www.bnet.com/2403-13241_23-187036.html

Edited May 12, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano