<?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: Cap-and-Trade Bill Passes House</title>
	<atom:link href="http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/06/29/cap-and-trade-bill-passes-house/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/06/29/cap-and-trade-bill-passes-house/</link>
	<description>Providing logistics professionals with clear and concise analyses of Logistics Trends, Technologies, and Services</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:19:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: peterdub</title>
		<link>http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/06/29/cap-and-trade-bill-passes-house/comment-page-1/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>peterdub</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:25:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://logisticsviewpoints.com/?p=1264#comment-55</guid>
		<description>Adrian,

You are right to ask all those questions...

Keep Life simple, deal with the problem....

Assuming a need to deal with emissions,
electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles) alone account for nearly 80% of fuel combustion emissions

More: 
 No Trade Problems like the ones Obama mentions.
Unlike with Cap and Trade, that involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries,  electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local.


The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages - apart from lowering CO2 emissions:

1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that&#039;s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction - and that is one reason why the focus on carbon trading is wrong, compared with the focus on reducing fuel combustion emissions.
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which also reduces the dependency on oil imports.

Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
This is even more obvious from energy efficiency regulation not being necessary either.


Compare with
today&#039;s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand - together with extensive efficiency regulation on what people can or can&#039;t buy and use.

Understanding Cap and Trade, and why it is bad for America:
http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x
 Market Reduction of CO2: Cap and Trade - or Not?
Basic Idea -- Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair Trade -- Surreal Market -- Real Market -- Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs -- Allowance Trading -- Companies: Business Stability + Cost -- 
In Conclusion
   A New Electric America:    http://ceolas.net/#cc10x   onwards</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adrian,</p>
<p>You are right to ask all those questions&#8230;</p>
<p>Keep Life simple, deal with the problem&#8230;.</p>
<p>Assuming a need to deal with emissions,<br />
electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles) alone account for nearly 80% of fuel combustion emissions</p>
<p>More:<br />
 No Trade Problems like the ones Obama mentions.<br />
Unlike with Cap and Trade, that involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries,  electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local.</p>
<p>The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages &#8211; apart from lowering CO2 emissions:</p>
<p>1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that&#8217;s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction &#8211; and that is one reason why the focus on carbon trading is wrong, compared with the focus on reducing fuel combustion emissions.<br />
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.<br />
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which also reduces the dependency on oil imports.</p>
<p>Funding and Impact<br />
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.<br />
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.<br />
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.<br />
This is even more obvious from energy efficiency regulation not being necessary either.</p>
<p>Compare with<br />
today&#8217;s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand &#8211; together with extensive efficiency regulation on what people can or can&#8217;t buy and use.</p>
<p>Understanding Cap and Trade, and why it is bad for America:<br />
<a href="http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x" rel="nofollow">http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x</a><br />
 Market Reduction of CO2: Cap and Trade &#8211; or Not?<br />
Basic Idea &#8212; Offsets &#8212; Tree Planting &#8212; Manufacture Shift &#8212; Fair Trade &#8212; Surreal Market &#8212; Real Market &#8212; Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs &#8212; Allowance Trading &#8212; Companies: Business Stability + Cost &#8212;<br />
In Conclusion<br />
   A New Electric America:    <a href="http://ceolas.net/#cc10x" rel="nofollow">http://ceolas.net/#cc10x</a>   onwards</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
