Comments on: DOE Secretary Chu’s Convoluted Climate Economics

By: David Van-Danzig

David Van-Danzig — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:51:38 +0000

Bravo, glad to see there are cleaver people in the world who do have some influence, keep up the good work, Long Live Common-sense.

By: Morry Rotenberg

Morry Rotenberg — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:14:31 +0000

I thought that Chu was a Nobel prize winning physicist. I guess that his talents are not very fungible. Or is he just blinded by the brilliance of his boss?

By: chuck in st paul

chuck in st paul — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:46:52 +0000

Even the Euro-greenies are coming down hard against cap-and-rape. It is so corrupt… imagine that, the folks who ran oil for food with Iraq are now running the carbon credit markets and they’re corrupt…. Imagine my surprise. {/sarc}

Add to that the fact that carbon (especially CO2) is a benefit to the environment and not a detriment and you have what it really is – a scam useful for gaining more and more power. Who’d a thunk it?

By: peter in dublin

peter in dublin — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:25:47 +0000

Yes DOE secretary Chu is wrong –
(continued)

2. About Emission trading (cap and trade)
for many reasons, beyond the focus on wind energy and related carbon prices that you mention
See http://masterresource.org/?p=3507#comment-1921

More:
http://ceolas.net/#cce1x
Emission Policy Alternatives
Introduction: The need – or not – to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances

2. Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax — Emission Tax

3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea
Offsets — Tree Planting
International Trade: Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market
Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading Companies: Business Stability + Cost
In Conclusion
4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions.
.

By: peter in dublin

peter in dublin — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:18:51 +0000

Yes DOE secretary Chu is wrong –

1. About the need for energy efficiency legislation, which seems to be his main issue and responsibility area

See
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/10/the-rest-of-waxman/#comment-3141

[ In short:
A natural reply might be ”well isn’t it good to only have efficient products?”
Energy efficiency is only one advantage a product can have.
Inefficent products have advantages too – or noone would buy them.
Whether TV sets or dishwashers or other products,
greater energy use can mean better performance , appearance , construction, cost and indeed savings
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x

Energy or emission problems can and should be addressed directly, there is no need to ban what people want to buy
(there is no energy shortage given renewable development, and
emissions can as explained on the website be dealt with directly – besides, electrical products don’t give out CO2, power stations do) ]

By: More on Secy. Chu’s convoluted climate economics | OpenMarket.org

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:34:31 +0000

[...] [...]

By: DCTJ

DCTJ — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:07:09 +0000

Chu is grasping at straws. His job is to garner support for cap and trade. Kind of hard when cap and trade is already in place in Europe, but it failing to achieve its goal of lowering emissions. It won’t work, and it will cost Americans dearly in the process. Write your Senators at http://tiny.cc/y4sE1 and voice opposition to cap and trade.

By: Ed Reid

Ed Reid — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:19:02 +0000

“So Chu’s thesis that cap-and-trade is the key to building a clean-tech export sector is refuted by the very country he spotlights as both model and threat.”

Perhaps you misunderstood Secretary Chu. It appears obvious that US adoption of cap & trade is key to China developing a clean-tech export sector.

Since we’re the “bad guys”, we need to “take one for the team” as part of a regime of “mitigation and adaptation” payments to liquidate our massive “carbon debt” to the developing world.

I feel the need to go “toss my cookies”.