The Threat of a Cap-and-Trade Swindle

Turning carbon into cold cash

Turning carbon into cold cash

From National Post

The closer the United States gets to adopting a cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions, the more frightening it gets.

Not because the plan now under debate in the U. S. Congress would complicate the lives of energy producers, or impose new costs on consumers. Those drawbacks might be bearable if the system was truly designed to reduce emissions, and if the expense was reasonable. The alarm results from increasing evidence that emissions have become a secondary concern of a plan whose main purpose is to serve the partisan interests of the Democratic Party.

Jim Prentice, Canada’s Minister of the Environment, visited Washington this week to warn in no uncertain terms that the proposal before Congress would be a “prescription for disaster” for U. S. trade relations.

He was referring to “border tax adjustments” included in the U. S. bill, which would impose charges on goods imported from countries that do not match U. S. efforts to reduce emissions.

The charges are ostensibly intended to force countries like China and India to adopt similar emission-fighting measures. In reality, argued Mr. Prentice, they would act as “trade protectionism in the name of environmental protection,” allowing the United States to force up the price of imports to the benefit of American competitors. Mr. Prentice said Ottawa fully intends to match whatever greenhouse legislation the United States puts in place, but that might not avert the danger. It would still be up to Washington to decide whether it deemed Canadian protections adequate.

If Washington continues along the path toward discrimination, Mr. Prentice warned, Ottawa will take appropriate action — a clear hint at retaliation. A trade war would benefit no one, but would nonetheless likely be popular among labour unions, a traditional base of support for Democrats.

The U. S. plan would similarly boost Democrat fortunes by providing a multi-billion-dollar windfall to power producers largely clustered in states loyal to the party. As outlined by National Post columnist David Frum this week, the bill would include a system in which carbon emitters could buy the right to continue emitting by purchasing credits from cleaner companies. This is a key feature of cap-and-trade plans, but Democrats have stacked the deck by proposing to award allotments of emission credits, free of charge, to “clean” firms, which could then earn billions by selling them to big emitters.

Read the rest of this article at National Post.

25 Responses to The Threat of a Cap-and-Trade Swindle

  1. Rob N. Hood May 24, 2009 at 8:58 pm #

    Yes, this could be just another scam by the rich to get richer… BUT, what if it has merit? What if it has precedence, and does what it purports to do? After all it is another example of the free-enterprise capitalistic system, something the “founder” of this site pretends to believe in.

    This wouldn’t be a viable option if I had any say about it. My ideas would be even more distasteful to right-wingers, probably. You people who don’t like Liberal ideas, and act like you hate big powerful entities pushing you around (I don’t either) then why don’t you REALLY do something about it? You waste your time attacking Liberals when it is the upper crust wealthy and corporations that we should all be focusing on. But you probably never will. You are blinded. By what? I certainly don’t know, but I have some theories, which I’ve posted before.

    We need to stop fighting each other, because that is what really gives the wealthy elite power to steal from us, and get rich off of us, bribe and buy all the politicians (onm both sides) and render the majority powerless. Can you wrap your minds around this? If not, why not?

  2. Neil F. May 25, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    You have to believe that CO2 is a pollutant in order for this to have any merit. I do not believe CO2 is a pollutant.

  3. Rob N. Hood May 26, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    That is a very simplistic explanation Neil. Very simplistic.

    Much of politics and the issues of the day, such as this one, has been purposefully framed in Manichean dualism: Dividing the world into good and evil, black and white, conservative and liberal. And I’m convinced that it services and even satisfies a significant bloc of the American public that craves this kind of explanation of their world, because it has a comforting value to them. These are the people socialists and psycholgists call “the authoritarians” –- the people who actively seek authoritarian rule.

    Authoritarians are not comfortable with looking at issues, or people, in shades of grey, that is possessing subtle differences that need attention to be better understood. It can even provoke hatred, which is used by the rich elite to foment wars and yes even civil wars. All the while they are getting richers while the regular people fight and even kill each other. It is a very old story… used countless times by those in power.

  4. Dan McGrath May 26, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    Authoritarian?! Are you kidding me? Look at every socialist or communist society that’s ever existed, then compare their level of authoritarianism to that of the United States. Most of those countries won’t even let people leave – because they would in a mass exodus. Now let’s look at which party favors ever-expanding authority. Who pushed smoking bans on private property to protect us from ourselves? Who pushed seatbelt laws to protect us from ourselves? Who wants to centralize power over medical decisions and payments? Who thinks government has a right to fire employees of private companies? Who pushed for (and got) a BAN on Edison’s lighbulb to force people to buy GE’s crappy, expensive poison lights? When the government is so much micromanaging our lives and decisions, and socialists want even more central power, they would point to authoritarianism elsewhere? Time for a long hard look in the mirror, socialists.

    All I want is busybodies to stay the hell out of my life and allow me to prosper as best I can with my own steam.

  5. Neil F. May 27, 2009 at 3:43 am #

    Simple, yes.
    Copied, pasted, and passed off as my own thoughts, no.

  6. Neil F. May 27, 2009 at 3:59 am #

    Hmmm… Rob: You really think, that we think, you came up with this garbage? Come on, you must think that we are complete idiots. If you want any respect from me, source your quotes! Then you can say why you agree with it. And yes it does matter, it gives the reader an opportunity to read the entire story. Not just what you want them to see.

    “Hate-talk radio is all about Manichean dualism: Dividing the world into good and evil, black and white, conservative and liberal. And I’m convinced that it actually services a significant bloc of the American public that craves this kind of explanation of their world, because it has a comforting value to them. These are the people Robert Altemeyer calls “the authoritarians” –- the people who actively seek authoritarian rule.”

  7. Neil F. May 27, 2009 at 9:29 am #


    1. the doctrines and practices of the dualistic religious system of Manes, a blending of Gnostic Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and other elements, especially doctrines of a cosmic conflict between forces of light and darkness, the darkness and evilness of matter, and the necessity for a sexual, vegetarian asceticism.
    2. any similar dualistic system, considered heretical by orthodox Christian standards. Cf. Gnosticism. — Manichean, n., adj. — Manicheistic, adj.
    See also: Heresy

    It has nothing to do with The Threat of a Cap-and-Trade Swindle. Why do you continue to post Left-wing propaganda and divert us from the topic of the posts? How ’bout a comment on The Threat of a Cap-and-Trade Swindle?

  8. Neil F. May 27, 2009 at 9:59 am #

    Free markets, deregulation, smaller government, freedom of speech, gun rights, individual freedom. Authoritarian? On the contrary! Literally!
    I’m sorry that you can’t accept reality, but words mean things, and you obviously have no idea what the meanings are behind the words that you copy and paste. I think you need to sit down with a dictionary and look up a whole bunch of words that you think you already know. Because, I have news for you, you are incorrect….a lot.

    1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
    2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. See Synonyms at dictatorial.

  9. Rob N. Hood May 28, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    You guys make me laugh. Thanks for all the fun. Everything I’ve posted DOES have something do to with your dire issues. and I have tried debating some of them directly. It is YOU people who don’t. and so what if I cut and paste- who cares? It’s what is said, and the ideas that need to be thought about and discussed. Neil posts jusnk science all the time and thinks it’s words from God or something.

    You guys think SMALL… when you think at all.

    Good bye my confused “friends”- have a nice time in your scary little narrow world!

  10. Rob N. Hood June 5, 2009 at 9:17 am #

    Right-wing = Authoritarian. Libertarians are on the right also. Sorry, but true, at least in this country.

    Look at the record: Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber, was not a liberal. Timothy McVeigh was not a liberal. Randall Terry was not a liberal. Richard Poplawski, who shot three police officers in Pittsburgh back in April, claiming Obama wants to take his guns? Probably not a liberal. Jim David Adkisson, who opened fire in a church in Tennessee last year after leaving behind a manifesto saying he wanted to kill “every Democrat in the Senate and House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg’s book”–I’m guessing he didn’t give money to public radio and subscribe to Mother Jones. And it’s a safe bet that Scott Roeder, accused of killing Dr. George Tiller in church on Sunday, isn’t a liberal either.

  11. Paul Wenum June 8, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    Here you go again. I watch PBS, listen to MPR as well as other media outlets. I donated for over 25 years to MTP/PBS! You put people, groups into boxes. It is apparent that you do not think out of the box. You are confined to your little existence of hiding without consequence. Start reading both sides. Maybe then, that is maybe, you will understand that there are differences of opinion wthout pointing fingers. Always remember, you point one finger at someone, you have four pointing back at you!

  12. Rob N. Hood June 9, 2009 at 12:04 pm #

    Paul, I was responding to a previous claim that Liberals are the violent ones. I have a very open mind. I have hinted at a middle ground in various posts and have gotten shot down every time. You and Neil are hardcore deniers on this issue. And I hope you’re right about it- I will be as happy as anyone if there’s nothing to it. But you guys… you play only to win. Black and white, concrete, win or lose, no middle ground… etc. etc. You aren’t as tolerant or as open-minded as you pretend.

  13. bgates June 11, 2009 at 8:34 am #

    “Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber, was not a liberal. Timothy McVeigh was not a liberal. Randall Terry was not a liberal. Richard Poplawski, who shot three police officers in Pittsburgh back in April”

    How do we know they were not liberal? How about Bill Ayers? Using your logic then I could say, Harry S. Truman, Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin who were most definetly not Conservative.

  14. Rob N. Hood June 12, 2009 at 8:28 am #

    I personally didn’t come to that conclusion about those individuals. It is based upon their stated political orientations and other objective data that was obtained directly or secured from their homes.

    Re: the historical figures you listed- how is that relevant, really? We were talking about people in this country and from a fairly recent time-frame. No, Harry Truamn was not a Conservative. Are you saying he was evil, and violent? yes, he was President when “the bomb’ (s) were dropped, and that is something I personally think was wrong, but I didn’t live in that time and so don’t feel qualified to judge it too much either way.

  15. Paul Wenum June 15, 2009 at 9:53 pm #

    Why the stereo type? Thoughts can go both ways. Both of you do not understand. From what I hear/read, your minds are made up no matter the reality or consequence. Sorry to read the “other-side,” or is there one? Let me know.

  16. Paul Wenum June 16, 2009 at 10:06 pm #

    I agree with Dan McGraths post of May 26, 2009. Stay out of our lives. Work hard, it will come. Work a little bit, you may gain something. Don’t work at all, don’t worry, the Government will take care of you. I take the first choice and dislike anyone telling me or my family how to live my lfe. I like the light bulbs that I have and my cars that I drive. Once freedom of choice is gone we will have a major problem! The sorry part is that the average american is to wrapped up in Reality shows, not hearing both sides etc. Sad, but true. Later.

  17. Robert N. Hudd June 17, 2009 at 2:54 pm #

    Ever hear “freedom isn’t free”? I think that’s a fairly bogus and simplistic statement, but in some respects it’s true. I have a huge problem with Libertarianism. It is not only unrealistic, but irresponsible to the max. The days when the lone pioneer could take care of himself and his own are long gone and probably never coming back. Any fantasy about living that way today or in the future is just that- fantasy. And if yo ask me it is a rather immature fantasy at that. Oddly enough Paul- if what Neil beleives is true- that Liberal Elites and Environmentalist/One Worlders want to destroy this country (to perportedly save the environment) and reduce the world’s population significantly, THEN guess what? Those left alive WILL (probably) HAVE THE AMOUNT OF PERSONEAL FREEDOM YOU LIBERTARIANS PRETEND TO WANT AND THINK WOULD MAKE YOU SO VERY HAPPY. Maybe, just maybe, the “scam” is being run by Libertarians. Ever thought of that? Apparently not…

  18. Paul Wenum June 17, 2009 at 9:56 pm #

    So far I, as well as you have personal “freedom.” I wish to keep it that way. Is that a problem? I guess it is when big brother starts telling me what to drive, eat and how to earn a living. Oh, that’s right! Just work for the government they are the largest employer and you have instant job security!

  19. Rob N. Hood June 18, 2009 at 8:27 am #

    I have two jobs, one full-time and I work almost every weekend at a part time job. I haven’t had a real vacation in years. How many jobs you got? Did I touch a nerve Mr. Libertarian?

  20. Paul Wenum June 19, 2009 at 12:32 am #

    As stated before I started with nothing and took risks that the average person does not do. I work 6-7 days a week including holidays. Does my family like it, no! But that’s life, deal with it. In fact, I’m proud of you! You actually made my day and I’m serious. There should be more people like you Rob that work as hard as you do without a handout! You earned it Rob, enjoy it. All people that don’t work and get a free ride believe they are “entitled” to a paycheck. Not you nor I! Someday you will see the wisdom of your hard work. As my old 95 year old neigbor always says, “working hard is good.” I’m a firm believer in that statement. That vacation will come, trust me! Been there done that. Good luck and work hard, it will come.

  21. paul wenum June 27, 2009 at 10:41 pm #


    You can now take you vacation. Your “side” won (so far) Please don’t choke when you get your electric bill. You may have to have four jobs, or none at all?? Good luck and sincerely wish you well.

  22. Rob N. Hood June 28, 2009 at 9:49 am #

    My point is nobody should have to work that much, in this rich country anyway. You should spend more time with your family. THAT is what I want for people in this country. Hard work is all well and good, but we average folk should also have time for other things in life as well. Why are we working as hard or harder than people did 100 years ago for God’s sake?? Why? Because the military indutrial complex is sucking us dry. It’s not all those “lazy folks” and “welfare queens” that are making you and I work our lives away. That is one of the Big Lies. Part of the propaganda and brainwashing I keep talking about. That crap has been force fed us since we were little- THAT is what true brainwashing is and it has worked brilliantly for a long time. However, the Internet is helping to wake people up to jolting people out of knee-jerk thinking patterns. People like you need to stiop blaming the victim, and join the rational logical thinkers and then we can actually make this the country it was supposed to be. Will you stop siding with your political/corporate rulers? (for it is they that are making you a slave) I doubt it, but I always hope.

  23. Paul Wenum June 30, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    You will never change. My great grandfather, grandfather and my father all worked 80 hour weeks. That’s what made this country great. If you wish to sit back and let life go by without a contribution that takes “work” so be it. Don’t cry about a meager salary or opportunity if you are not willing to sacrifice time for “your family” now, and in the future! Yes, sacrifice!!! Don’t attempt to lecture if you are unwilling to work to fullfill your dreams. No wonder we have an entitlement society! I Hope you sit back and reflect a bit. Good luck!

  24. Dan Olson July 1, 2009 at 11:48 pm #

    Rob N Hood,

    I find it most fascinating that you continue to return week after week with your replies. The amount of energy you expend on these opinion issues is truly fascinating.

  25. Paul Wenum July 6, 2009 at 2:13 am #


    Remember, “Family first, work second”. I live by that. I find it interesting that people find our blather fascinating. I would rather sit aound a fire pit and look my friend in the eye when discussing things that he/she valued. Oh well, so be the internet etc. All personal touch gone forever. Sad but true.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.