Carbon Capping Debate - Will Results Favor Wall St.? 14 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Despite the frightening state of the U.S. economy, it still appears to be “politics as usual” in Washington, aided and abetted by journalism as usual.
Yes, the economic recovery act should be vigorously debated. But does anyone – anyone – think the debate has been conducted thoughtfully in the House and the Senate by elected officials who are more concerned about the fate of the nation than the fate of their political party?
As decisive to America’s future as the current economic debate is, soon to come is another debate that won’t just be critically important to the fate of the economy but also the environment. Everything – not only our pocketbooks and portfolios but our very quality of life – rides on whether Congress can rise to the level of thoughtful debate.
The debate will be over how America should deal with rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that most scientists believe is a key cause of global warming. The overarching question is: should America put a limit, “cap,” on CO2 emissions and, if so, how should it be enacted – through “cap-and-trade” or through a “carbon tax?”
The other week ExxonMobil Corp (Symbol: XOM) came out in favor of a carbon tax. If ExxonMobil, one of the world’s best political infighters, has decided it can’t keep fighting CO2-limiting legislation, then the “should there be” part of the debate has already been resolved.
So, profound change is coming. If, as the Obama administration wants, Congress embraces cap-and-trade, then an entirely new financial market with the potential to be as big as the stock and bond markets will be created over the next several years. This market will trade carbon “credits,” financial instruments generated by businesses (and, for all we know, maybe even homeowners). They will be sold by those that annually reduce their carbon emissions by more than an amount specified by the government. They will be bought by those who don’t.
The White House wants everyone covered under the cap. That would mean that the bottom line of literally every company in America would feel either a positive or a negative impact.
The alternative, a carbon tax, is seen by environmental and other advocates as the better approach on the grounds that it will force actual reductions in CO2 emissions by eliminating the option of paying for credits that, according to the advocates, constitute a permit a pollute.
If Congress goes the tax route, every business will again be affected to the extent that it is dependent on fossil fuels. Even with a maximum push for wind and solar development, the world will still likely be heavily dependent on fossil fuels in 20 years, and thus a carbon tax will likely make all energy usage far more costly.
What’s an investor to do? Bet on cap-and-trade, but not on Congress getting it right. After a not-very-thoughtful discussion, Congress will pass legislation that may well turn out to be a disaster for the economy and the environment in that it will be extremely expensive and won’t do anything to reduce emissions.
But cap-and-trade is what Obama wants. And it’s what Wall Street wants and needs to regain financial stability because it will generate a lucrative new source of income.
Who should investors bet on? They should think first about Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (Symbol: GS), Morgan Stanley (Symbol: MS) and Barclays PLC (Symbol: BCS), all of whom have long been preparing for a cap-and-trade world.
Disclosure: no positions
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
There is no race to the truth - without private industry research it is all political - the private groups really have no monetary incentive to fund billions for a overextrapolated doomsday scenerio.
And there is no one to rebut the arguments since the majority of meter. stations and researchers rely on federal grants and money - which undeniably means the politicians that fund it. Look at the "research" which was included as a part of our last chance for economic survival - in the big pork bill - not seperate.
There is a major effort to confuse carbon warming theory with the subset of air pollution over major cities - which of course contributes but two different arguments. Also there is another major effort to confuse global warming with energy efficiency - in many cases of course they work inversely - it is fiction one will lead to another - because wind, solar etc must be measured by resources expended ie costs- not just carbon output.
The biggest head fake going -
Once again why would some integrated be so against cap -if you reduce demand or tax - they know this is a political gerrymandered policy against primarily the US leaving out so many nations who will refuse to comply anyway that the value of the black gold reserves will rise enriching their assets.
How this relates to weaning off of foreign oil is another fake out.
If we were working in the private sector - people would do studies to see what the best alt solution is for develop. In political grab bags you take any idea that sell newspapers and fund them all simultaneously wind,solar,ethanol, geo etc as a lazy political expedient solution -buying votes everywhere.
To your point this is why we it is politics as usual. Politics is the last the last place this question should be resolved - we handed them the question? I believe there is not one engineer in the Senate!
> jack
Science has always been a public funding exercise and not until the global warming hypothesis reared its head did conservatives try to argue that public funding taints the views of researchers.
Seems awfully c-o-n-v-e-n-i-e-n-t ....
Many developed much larger per capital CO2 emissions than the US. France for example emits six tons per person per year whereas the US figure is 22 tons.
How did the French accomplish that? They converted from oil and coal to nuclear power.
Didn't break the French economy. Won't break the American economy.
"Former astronaut scoffs at global warming
Tom Sharpe | The New Mexican 2/14/2009
Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, one of the last men to walk on the moon and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico, doesn't buy the idea that humans are causing global warming.
"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," he said. ...
"As a geologist, I love Earth observations," he wrote in his Nov. 14 resignation letter. "But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a 'consensus' that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise.
" 'Consensus,' as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities." ...
In a Saturday interview, Schmitt expounded on what he called "indisputable facts" that global warming is the result of natural, rather than man-made, causes. He said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.
As for rises in sea levels, Schmitt said, geological evidence indicates major changes have been going on for thousands of years. Smaller changes in sea level are related to changes in the elevation of land masses, he said. For example, he said, the Great Lakes are rising because their bottoms are rising because the crust of the earth is rebounding from being depressed by glaciers. ...
"In Antarctica, it looks like the total volume (of ice) is increasing and if that's true, that's probably why you're getting increased ice moving away from the center of the continent and therefore these big icebergs and stuff are breaking off," he said.
Although Greenland's glaciers receded for decades, Schmitt said, they began advancing again around 2005.
Schmitt grew up in Silver City, graduated with a science degree from the California Institute of Technology in 1957, studied geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964. ..."
www.santafenewmexican....
Warming a cooling cycles are not related to carbon dioxide, but rather the changes in solar radiation due to sunspot cycles, ocean currents and volcanic activity. Water vapor is much more prevalent in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide but isnn't even considered in the current forecast models. 31 thousand scientists signed a petition against the Kyoto protocol and a big internationlal conference of well known scientists including Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT is being held in New York next month. The barrage of propaganda by Al Gore, James Hansen and the IPCC may have convinced the news media, but the truth will come out. They are so entrenched and heavily invested in their little "empire" that they fudge the data, make outrageous predictions, and intimidate true scientists. I hold a masters degree in Meteorology from MIT and have worked as a forecaster and researcher for 35 years.
On Feb 17 09:07 AM American in Paris wrote:
> This is complete rubbish. Global warming is a fact and it is also
> a fact that the sharp rise in CO2 emissions is responsible for it.
>
>
> Science has always been a public funding exercise and not until the
> global warming hypothesis reared its head did conservatives try to
> argue that public funding taints the views of researchers.
>
> Seems awfully c-o-n-v-e-n-i-e-n-t ....
>
> Many developed much larger per capital CO2 emissions than the US.
> France for example emits six tons per person per year whereas the
> US figure is 22 tons.
>
> How did the French accomplish that? They converted from oil and coal
> to nuclear power.
>
> Didn't break the French economy. Won't break the American economy.
Germany is upset because it has figured out that all the money it spent on wind turbines has no effect on CO2 under the Kyoto cap. The EU will still hit the cap. Their expense just makes it cheaper for others to buy CO2 permits.
This effect is just starting to be understood in the US, but once it is realized that the a US cap would mean CAFE standards have no effect, I predict environmentalists will shift quickly towards a carbon tax.
For the full analysis, google this: Cap and Trade Secrets
or click: <b>Cap-and-Trade Secrets</b>
You'll find a very short, free, pdf eBook, that will convince you cap-and-trade will not win in the end.
The big problem with a carbon tax is that it doesn't encourage much more effective ways to reduce greenhouse gasses like improved agricultural practices. The government has proven itself to be incompetent in picking technologies so carbon trading lets the free market make the decisions about where the money goes. Read this:
clrlight.org/Biochar.h...
The whole global warming or climate change, what ever you want to call the fraud, is a radical approach to herd the people of the world, through fear of small effects over decades if not century's.
These people really need to be run out of Dodge,
all you need for corrupt politicians is tar and feathers,
which is just what this GW crowd needs.
Meanwhile American consumers will be stuck with higher prices for everything when productive industries raise their prices to recover the costs of reducing CO2 emissions and buying carbon credits. And Jrbarnes is right: increased CO2 enhances plant growth which will be necessary to feed a growing world population. Manmade global warming is political manipulation of the most destructive kind.