A Look at power equipment trade in What do objective economic studies tell us about cap and trade legislation?
power equipment trade:
Power Equipment
Question by bucket22: What do objective economic studies tell us about cap and trade legislation?
EPA analysis:
“[The bill would] create strong demand for a domestic manufacturing market for these next generation technologies that will enable American workers to serve in a central role in our clean energy transformation;
”
[It would] play a critical role in the American economic recovery and job growth – from retooling shuttered manufacturing plants to make wind turbines, to using equipment and expertise in drilling for oil to develop clean energy from underground geothermal sources, to tapping into American ingenuity to engineer coal-fired power plants that do not contribute to climate change. ”
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/economicanalyses.html
http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/waxman-markey-epa-analysis/
Best answer:
Answer by Peter J
Any time you make something more expensive, you get less of it.
Make economic activity more expensive, you get less of it.
Energy makes everything we have… food, computers, entertainment… everything. Make it more expensive, and you’ll have less of it.
So, basically it will screw things up.
Lots of people WANT alternative energy, there just aren’t any that are yet practical. When there is practical alternative energy, I’m sure most of us will eagerly seek it out.
What do you think? Answer below!
Power Equipment
There is no reason to think that it can’t work. People are afraid of what they don’t understand and the misinformation be fed to them.
The existing energy alternatives are more expensive. Cap and trade makes them competitive by raising the cost of oil. With more expensive oil, we use less of it and are more prone to switch to alternatives. This should decrease pollution. However, it will raise prices for everything. It is imperative that we wean ourselves away from foreign oil. It jeopardizes our security. Also as the alternatives become more available, they will get cheaper. The problem then is getting the people to lower prices. Something they dislike doing even if they can afford it.
As to the marketability of the certificates. It would depend on the markets agreement and profit in trade. We don’t know if the certificates will be even be marketable. If they are, it would need to be controlled.
an objectrive economic study from the EPA? You’re kidding, right?
Consider Denmark, which Forbes just named “the best country in the world for business” for 2 straight years. Denmark has one of the strongest cap-and-trade commitments in the world — 20% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. And it has a requirement that 20 percent of its overall energy mix be renewable by the end of 2011. And its efficiency measures are such that Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard said last year, “In 2025, (Denmark’s) total energy consumption will not have risen in 50 years.” And it’s the best country for business in the world.
One recent plan to address global warming would just cost less than 3% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 to meet its lowest targets — or 0.12% annually. The IPCC suggests similar annual mitigation costs of 0.2-3.5% of current world GDP. That compares favorably to global economic growth that every year has averaged almost 3% since 2000. The damage from unabated climate change, meanwhile, might eventually cost the global economy 5-20% of GDP each year, every year, according to a 2006 British government report.
Moreover, Florida and California have recently performed studies regarding the economic costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Florida concluded that a 50% cut in the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025 would save the state $ 28 billion. California similarly concluded the economic savings from its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions would outweight the costs.