Originally Posted by ptownrob

My apologies if I jumped on the partisan wagon too quickly this issue. I reread all the posts, and would like to talk about two things:

1. The concern about apathy. I think that there is a certain "wall" of inevitability about the complexity of modern life that makes people throw up their hands and just not even try. I think about 90% of the population has always been apathetic in general when it comes to "civic" involvement. Period. Our revolution, and the Russian Revolution were actively supported by about 10% of the population.

Apathy grows, as Orwell warned in 1984, as our minds are filled with useless propaganda, lottery games, and other diversions that keep all but a very few from being able to focus on reality- and even then, those individuals may cancel each other out, or more conspiratorially, feel that they are being "singled out" by some governmental entity. I speak of things like Hoover's FBI, Enemies Lists and even the recent DHS reports on "radicals."

2. "Cap & Trade" specifically. I read, and I read, and I read. Folks, it's incredibly complicated legislation. Period. Right now, it's really a planning document that extends all the way to 2050. And I'm not even going to mention the pork and extras that will undoubtedly end up in the bill to secure votes.

Basically, the concept is to reduce overall national carbon dioxide emissions to certain measurable levels within a certain number of years (The CAP). Think in terms of the EPA order of increasing gas mileage over time- same concept.

The problem: Many industries are much more CO2 intensive in their production techniques- notably coal generated power and manufacturing. Think of the "Trade" as like the board game "Monopoly" The idea behind the trade is that the government will "start the game" with a certain bank of credits to allow CO2 production. As years pass, some industries will create more efficient "green" ways to produce their products. They will then be able to sell (TRADE) their CO2 credits to other companies that have not lowered their CO2 production to the prescribed level. (Remember,over the decades, the overall production of CO2 is "Capped" at lower and lower levels.)

The problems?
-Can companies invent and invest in products that reduce CO2 without breaking the bank- and the economy? Especially if other countries can produce the same widget without any concern over CO2 emissions.
-Ultimately,it's the consumer who will pay for those traded CO2 levels for companies that have to "buy" credits from less polluting ones. Today that means that coal powered energy will potentially pay the most- and pass that on to consumers.
- There is a complicated "tax" formula for who pays the most for traded energy costs- it's a progressive tax, so the wealthiest pay more. Estimates range from $50 a month to $400 a month for those who pay taxes now. That of course leads to the question of the poor paying no taxes for thhis energy cap.
- Some still argure that manmade CO2 pollution is not contributing to global warming, and so the whole thing is a huge government red-herring. Others (including the vast majority of climate scientists) claim that we need to act quickly. There's the politics of it.

So that's it for me- Hope this helps. Google "cap & trade" & search around- you'll find simple and complicated explanations from all sides.

Here's a simple "pro" site explanation:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...dtrade101.html

and here is a Wall Street journal take of it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html