“CAP AND TRADE” is hot on Capitol Hill as a strategy for fighting global-warming despite the fact that our earth has been cooling for the last decade - http://tinyurl.com/lcephd.
This legislation would let the government dictate to companies the amount of carbon dioxide emissions they’re permitted to generate - each sector would be given different amounts. If a company generates less than what they’re allowed, they may then sell their unused allocations to other companies needing more latitude to avoid fines, hence the term “cap and trade.” Ultimately, any costs incurred from the purchase of these units would be passed onto consumers. Currently, many congressmen and senators from strong farming states are encountering a backlash of grief because farmers require an immense amount of energy to grow, harvest and distribute their foods.
QUESTION: Are we gaining more than we’re losing with this strategy. In other words, if our own untapped domestic energy supplies allow us to more cheaply transition to alternative fuels anyway, why must we punish ourselves on the way to getting there? Can’t we simply use the solution that’s already in our possession? What do you think?
You should have Alan Carlin - the EPA scientist whose study critical of global warming was silenced - on your show.