Subscription Center
Mar 29, 2008 06:30 AM | 1
But will such prices on carbon dioxide pollution end up facilitating the development of cleaner energy alternatives? "The answer is no," argues economist Michael Grubb of the University of Cambridge who is also chief economist for The Carbon Trust, a London consultancy that helps companies transition away from greenhouse gas pollution. "Carbon prices will not drive the innovation that we require."
Government policies will be needed for that, particularly in encouraging the conservative energy industry to transition to more innovative forms of power generation, such as new nuclear power and coal-fired generation that captures and stores the carbon it would otherwise emit, along with renewables like wind- and solar-derived energy.
"Nothing alone is enough," DiPerna admitted. But "price transparency""”knowing how much it will cost a given company to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere"”"is very critical."
More News Blog: Next: Man-made trees and shells will save us from climate change Previous: Will the U.S. solve the climate change problem?
See what we're tweeting about
MRAKdesign Alright, my teeth hurt like hell after being 'adjusted' twice. Oral hygiene needn't be like this. MRAKdesign @philipyam @akuchment @SteveMirsky not hard to believe down there. It's too much sun that makes those folks think that way anyhow.
notscientific To fight global drug trades it's time that Western governments go pass mere punitive measures http://t.co/ydjFm4veoV
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
1 Comments
Add CommentCap and Trade Fraud
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCap and trade is Enron forced onto everyone.
Why didn't Californians use less electricity when Enron reduced the supply and increased the price? That's what cap and trade is supposed to do—force people to use less electricity by reducing the supply and increasing the price.
Instead Californians had blackouts and paid tens of billions of dollars to extortionists to keep the electricity going. Extend that to everyone, and it's called cap and trade.
The country is focusing on a "cap and trade" scheme as its method of removing carbon dioxide from the air. Congress is moving in that direction. This means that those companies which add a lot of carbon dioxide to the air (utilities) will pay a lot for "carbon credits," while non-emitting companies (Google and Microsoft) can sell their carbon credits for income.
Google and Microsoft do not need money from the utility companies. Furthermore, Wall Street is going to do most of the buying and selling of the carbon credits. Whose money are they going to be ripping off? Everyone's. They take money from industry, and people pay more for energy. Think Enron.
What was wrong with Enron, when cap and trade is supposed to do the exact same thing, in the exact same way, by the exact same persons? Cap and trade is Enron forced onto everyone.
The supposed purpose is to create an incentive to reduce carbon emissions. But incentive is not the problem. Cost and technology are the problems. Adding banking swindles to the cost does not make the technology more available.
It's like increasing a person's incentive to make more money by robbing him in a dark alley. People already have enough incentive to make money. Robbing them only makes it harder for them to succeed.
But this whole idea of cap and trade is similar to all other aspects of the global warming fraud: There is no relationship to objective reality, because ulterior motives are the driving force. There are layers to motives, with the bottom layers being subconscious