<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No Treaty? No Problem! Obama Plans to Push Ahead Anyway</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/2009/11/no-treaty-no-problem-obama-plans-to-push-ahead-with-international-cap-and-trade-anyway/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/2009/11/no-treaty-no-problem-obama-plans-to-push-ahead-with-international-cap-and-trade-anyway/</link>
	<description>Facts, not fiction on climate change</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:27:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter in dublin</title>
		<link>http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/2009/11/no-treaty-no-problem-obama-plans-to-push-ahead-with-international-cap-and-trade-anyway/comment-page-1/#comment-252</link>
		<dc:creator>peter in dublin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:04:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/?p=237#comment-252</guid>
		<description>All this about &quot;betraying Europe&quot;....

There are too many nutters here in Europe,
crying in their beer about the need to cut down and save
and imposing unwieldy inefficient bureaucratic Cap and Trade
together with equally inefficient and unfair Energy Efficiency regulations 
with bans on everything from light bulbs to dishwashers to types of buildings.

The worldwide energy efficiency craze 
(as also seen by the California ban on some TVs)
is unwarranted 
- given renewable energy development, there is no shortage,
and if there was,
then the price rise would reduce consumption anyway.
No need to legislate for it.

It might sound great to
&quot;Let everyone save money by stimulating the manufacture of energy efficient products&quot;
However:
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance,
appearance and construction advantages, along with a lower price.
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example,  big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.

As for EMISSIONS,
electrical products don&#039;t give out gases - power stations do.

The need or not to deal with CO2 can be debated,
but to the extent that it&#039;s good to reduce emissions for all else they contain,
such measures can of course be done by dealing directly with the problem.


Notice that Cap and Trade is pointless 
whether one is for or against CO2 reduction 

We have already seen that here in the EU 
with carbon prices  low and so cheap and meaningless as in recession times,
or too high to lead to any reduction at other times, when evasive
action for example involves paying off third world emitters (who
according to a recent Economist article can simply be set up to rake
in cash ie would not be emitting otherwise), or tree planting
exercises of dubious effect, which may in any case be fast growing
non-native trees which changes local ecosystems.

So our Soviet EUnion wants to drag the USA into this mess?
And President Obama is happy to agree?


Emission Trading  (Cap and Trade)
http://ceolas.net/#cce5x
Basic Idea -- Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair Trade -- Surreal Market -- Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs -- Allowance Trading -- Companies: Business Stability + Cost -- In Conclusion</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All this about &#8220;betraying Europe&#8221;&#8230;.</p>
<p>There are too many nutters here in Europe,<br />
crying in their beer about the need to cut down and save<br />
and imposing unwieldy inefficient bureaucratic Cap and Trade<br />
together with equally inefficient and unfair Energy Efficiency regulations<br />
with bans on everything from light bulbs to dishwashers to types of buildings.</p>
<p>The worldwide energy efficiency craze<br />
(as also seen by the California ban on some TVs)<br />
is unwarranted<br />
- given renewable energy development, there is no shortage,<br />
and if there was,<br />
then the price rise would reduce consumption anyway.<br />
No need to legislate for it.</p>
<p>It might sound great to<br />
&#8220;Let everyone save money by stimulating the manufacture of energy efficient products&#8221;<br />
However:<br />
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance,<br />
appearance and construction advantages, along with a lower price.<br />
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):<br />
<a href="http://ceolas.net/#cc211x" rel="nofollow">http://ceolas.net/#cc211x</a><br />
For example,  big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other<br />
advantages along with their large image sizes.</p>
<p>As for EMISSIONS,<br />
electrical products don&#8217;t give out gases &#8211; power stations do.</p>
<p>The need or not to deal with CO2 can be debated,<br />
but to the extent that it&#8217;s good to reduce emissions for all else they contain,<br />
such measures can of course be done by dealing directly with the problem.</p>
<p>Notice that Cap and Trade is pointless<br />
whether one is for or against CO2 reduction </p>
<p>We have already seen that here in the EU<br />
with carbon prices  low and so cheap and meaningless as in recession times,<br />
or too high to lead to any reduction at other times, when evasive<br />
action for example involves paying off third world emitters (who<br />
according to a recent Economist article can simply be set up to rake<br />
in cash ie would not be emitting otherwise), or tree planting<br />
exercises of dubious effect, which may in any case be fast growing<br />
non-native trees which changes local ecosystems.</p>
<p>So our Soviet EUnion wants to drag the USA into this mess?<br />
And President Obama is happy to agree?</p>
<p>Emission Trading  (Cap and Trade)<br />
<a href="http://ceolas.net/#cce5x" rel="nofollow">http://ceolas.net/#cce5x</a><br />
Basic Idea &#8212; Offsets &#8212; Tree Planting &#8212; Manufacture Shift &#8212; Fair Trade &#8212; Surreal Market &#8212; Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs &#8212; Allowance Trading &#8212; Companies: Business Stability + Cost &#8212; In Conclusion</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

