Comments on: The (Very Profitable) Economics of Emissions

By: Karen

Karen — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:56:58 +0000

You forgot to mention that Goldman Sachs is going to be the market maker in these trades. U.S. taxpayers have already given their future to this company via subsidies, so I think the whole thing stinks just because of Goldman Sachs’ involvement.

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:23:44 +0000

Actually, the straight carbon tax makes a lot more sense. Even under a cap and trade system, you can still buy as much carbon credits as you want. A carbon tax makes more sense as it would penalize every industry proportionally to the damage their actions cause the environment, if industry finds the penalties trivial, you just need to increase the tax rate. These taxes, of course, would be passed off to the consumer, reducing demand for these high-energy use products. In Germany, they tax all electricity and use it to fund alternative energy. They currently have the most installed solar power, a very large wind power base, and is currently at 17% lower than 1990 CO2 emissions. Just my 2 cents…

By: kitsana_d

kitsana_d — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:01:29 +0000

Wonderful article, and I have to agree with Sue.
If people would even recycle or buy locally, it would help even more. Us Everyday Joes and Jills can do our share!

By: Sue

Sue — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:48:45 +0000

too bad we can’t have emmissions rules for the stuff that comes out people’s mouths (or asses for that matter). lol
think of all the gas (greenhouse and otherwise) we could cut down on if people ate less beef. (cows fart. a lot.)