Is Cap and Trade a solution to environmental problems or a dangerous distraction?

Do you really think these guys are looking out for the best interests of the environment? Here are some problems with Cap %26amp; Trade explained with cartoons.


http://ordinarywords.com/capandtrade/|||Cap and trade sets up a scheme where a few will profit at the expense of the many. Carbon has no value, thus there's no reason to trade this stuff. The price is artificially set by government and wall street and the price will move not on free market value, but on the whims of politicians and ceo's.|||The most important part of the cap and trade is the cap. It isn't perfect, but do you see any better places to start right this instant? Is anyone offering any other ideas? No, because Most people who trash talk cap and trade are only doing so because of their political agendas and could give a f8ck about the environment (it's true). well that leads into a whole nother can of worms....





I would love to see a new energy economy, where the building of a sustainable energy infrastructure is economically driven, giving opportunity for business to grow and new businesses to develop by creating clean, renewable energy through incentive based programs.





That's the spirit of cap and trade. The ones who oppose it, those are the ones who just want to create doubt and confusion because that's what the whole political party is based on right now. Those are the ones who don't have the interest of the environment in mind. Ask any one of those other answerers if they give two sh1ts about the environment (they don't).





cap and trade is written in legal language and if you look hard enough, as with anything legal, you can find ways to interpret it negatively. It's just a small little baby step, but it's a step in the right direction.|||Parts of that were actually quite intelligent - especially where companies make huge sums of money when, according to them they have caused a carbon offset. That's just a cash cow waiting to be milked which will sink any chance of genuine CO2 reduction.





I disagree with the author's assertions that human activity is causing significant climate change. That's just bad science based on unjustified alarmism.





Do you think you can derail the climate change gravy train and keep alarmism - you can't. If there's no gravy train, there's no alarmism.|||It is best to describe it as a government run con game designed to make a few billionaires even richer than they were before. The included links include the names and bios of the developers of the con game and some details about the con clubs they setup and organized to develop, implement and milk the profits from the con.








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rocke鈥?/a>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soro鈥?/a>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuk鈥?/a>


http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution鈥?/a>


http://www.cfact.org/a/1474/Promoting-an鈥?/a>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothin鈥?/a>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robe鈥?/a>|||It's a dumb idea. Like the personal income tax, it's an unnecessarily complicated way to do something simple. If they were serious about cutting pollution, they'd simply ban pollution or raise taxes on pollution.|||Cap %26amp; Trade is simply a potential massive source of revenue for governments/politicians.|||Maybe environmental problems should be a possibility|||The good Dr said it best.