I don't claim to understand cap and trade, but according to the American Thinker, if I want to see the results of it, I should look at the California economy over the past three years. According to the article, California passed a measure in 2006 to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, which Washington is looking to as a model. The consequences of that law have not been pretty. One example from the article:
"For more than 100 years the Calportland cement company has manufactured cement from its limestone quarry in Colton, California, outside of Los Angeles. Already under pressure from plunging prices and profits, the company is facing large new expenses from the cost of meeting California's CO2 control regulations.
State regulators have projected that retrofitting the state's 11 cement plants would cost $220 million and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 12 percent per ton of cement. But CalPortland's executives say it would cost more than that to retrofit the Colton plant alone. "We don't have enough limestone left to invest $200 million," said James A. Repman, the company's president.
unconvincingly portrayed the law as "a riskless free lunch," and that the regulators were "systematically biased" in ways "that lead to potentially severe underestimates of costs."
Since Calportland can not justify the expense of upgrading the plant, the alternative is to close the plant and eliminate the 140 jobs it provides. The response of the carbon law's supporters to that prospect - be sure you are sitting down before you read this - tells all we need to know about the priorities here:
And the law's supporters note that less economic activity means reduced emissions of heat-trapping gases, making the law's goals -- cutting carbon-dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 -- easier to meet."
Leave a comment