Shawn Selby has researched Cap and Trade, which is being voted on in the House this week. It is important that we contact our Representatives, to oppose this destructive legislation. Contact information is included at the end of this report.
Here is Shawn's report:
Cap and Trade Overview
Q- What is "Cap and Trade"?
A- In the simplest terms that I have found, it can be called "pollution credits".
The premise is to reduce the Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in this case, Carbon Dioxide, by setting air quality standards for a certain area, (or nation). The government will give companies who are putting pollutants into the air a certain number of allowances, which is the amount of pollutants the government will allow the facility to emit.
If a facility comes in under the allowed limit using air pollution control systems, they can then sell the remaining leftover allowances to other facilities or organizations on the open market.
This allows facilities that are buying up these "pollution credits" to pollute more, because other facilities are polluting less.
The theory behind this is it is rewarding companies to control the air pollution, and giving the other companies who may not be able to purchase the latest air pollution reduction technologies some time to raise capital to afford it.
The problems it creates is multi-faceted.
When put into effect, while "cleaning up" certain areas, it can allow the areas where the companies who have purchased these credits, to over-pollute THAT particular area, causing extremely unhealthy air to breathe.
It does little for overall pollution problems because the groups that do not pollute, simply sell their credits to the highest bidder. While one firm cuts back on its emissions, the firm buying up the credits simply increases its emissions.
The second problem with it is the overall costs involved in the Cap and Trade market, and there are no rules or limits as to the price paid for these credits.
An example that I found:
Cap and trade is spouted as a way to reduce the Greenhouse gas emissions, (GHG) based on the following:
1) Capping the amount of GHG's a plant can emit (in total tonnes/year), with a declining amount permitted over the following years.
2) Emissions in excess of that permitted amount cost the plant a fee, (example: $10/tonne)
Assume the plant can either pay the fine, or put in pollution control equipment which would remove the GHG's, but at a cost of more than $10/tonne.
The Cap and Trade premise states that another firm, which is below the permitted pollution rate, will offer the excessively polluting plant it's credit, for say $8/tonne. This makes money for the non-polluting company, and saves the polluting company $2/tonne.
So, naturally what happens, the polluting companies are going to try and buy up as many credits as possible, and not really try to reduce pollution, while the non-polluting company is going to sell as many to the highest bidder. This leads to a trader's commodity market, instead of doing what the original plan called for.
Also, ALL nations need to join in with the idea for it to work . China and India will not participate, and they are two of the worst, if not THE worst, countries with carbon emissions.
Problem three is that there is no real scientific evidence supporting this. We breathe out CO2; plants take it in and make oxygen.
Problem four is that the costs involved for the administering and monitoring this global network would be HUGE and, in all likelyhood, unenforceable for all involved.
Take a look at the United Nations for further proof.
Some places to go to tell your Congressman on how you would like them to vote are:
Greg also sent a good e-mail address at:
I tried to check many sources to get a good view of the topic, both for and against. I hope this helps.