What is cap and trade (with pictures) gas x ultra strength directions


A cap and trade system is a method for managing pollution, with the end goal of reducing the overall pollution in a nation, region, or industry. Many proponents of pollution control support the concept of such systems, arguing that they are extremely effective, and that they make sense economically as well. It is only one option among many for reducing the emission of pollutants, most notably carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that has attracted a great deal of attention due to its environmental impacts.

Under a cap and trade system, a government authority first sets a cap, deciding how much pollution in total will be allowed. Next, companies are issued credits, essentially licenses to pollute, based on how large they are, what industries they work in, and so forth. If a company comes in below its cap, it has extra credits that it may trade with other companies.

For companies that come in below their caps, this system is great, because they can sell their extra credits, profiting while reducing their pollution. For companies that cannot get their pollution under control, the system penalizes them for their excess pollution while still bringing overall pollution rates down. In a sense, the need to purchase credits acts as a fine, encouraging companies to reduce their emissions.

By creating a cap, nations make it clear that they want to reduce overall emissions, rather than just fining companies for excessive emissions or trying to force all companies to reduce their emissions by a set percentage. Cap and trade systems allow for flexibility, which usually benefits the market. Some people view the concept as preferable to a taxation or fining system, because it is easier to administer and it results in a pollution reduction. These systems are most commonly used for carbon emissions, leading people to refer to it as “ carbon trading,” and there is a potential for a global carbon trading market, in which more efficient nations could trade credits with other countries.

A cap and trade system still requires regulation. Government agencies must monitor emissions from companies to ensure that they are reporting them truthfully, for example, and companies can still be fined for releasing harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, water, or soil. Cap and trade systems also benefit from investment in alternative energy on the part of the government, providing additional incentive to convert to more energy efficient and less polluting ways of generating energy to run companies, from paper mills to computer manufacturers.

. What does renewable have to do with cost? Fossil fuels are currently plentiful and require little effort to obtain. That is why they are cheap. When they are depleted, they will become expensive. Most "renewable" fuels are expensive to harness relative to fossil fuels. That is not to say we don’t need to move in that direction, that just means your comment makes no sense. Again, fossil fuels are in plentiful supply at this time. In fact, OPEC regulates production to keep prices high. Unfortunately, you missed other components in you view of prices: the price of labor and the price of production. Solar, geothermal and other alternate sources are machinery-intensive to produce. Machinery costs money. This machinery is also labor intensive to produce and maintain. So while there is plenty of sunlight, the process of gathering it is very expensive. In other words, Gore is rich enough to pay the penalty for producing carbon. Gore also holds huge interests in green technology companies so it behooves him to buy his own product. His father owned large tobacco farms for many years – that is how they got where they are. So that means tobacco is a good product? I have a scientific background. However, I am not a meteorologist or a climatologist. I am not qualified to analyze the climate change data. However, I am qualified to comment on the scientific process, and in the case of climate change, it has been poor at best.

Climate change believers have used unsound science, have had virtually no legitimate peer review in the process, detractors of the theory have repeatedly had their careers and even their lives threatened, and every climate change model produced in the last 15 years has failed. That is a pretty bad way to convince me. Furthermore, the empirical observations don’t seem to support the CO2 to climate change connection.

Gore points out that increases in ambient CO2 have correlated to increases in world temperature. But we have to remember that correlation does not mean cause. Where there is smoke there is fire. So does that mean smoke causes fire? Of course not. But fire still correlates to smoke.

It could well be that increases in temperature also favored an increase in life. (There is life at the North Pole, but there is a lot more at the equator.) Thus, as the world warmed, life increased, and thus ambient CO2 increased with it. That is why the oceans produce such massive amounts of CO2. In reality the ocean itself does not produce CO2, but the life in the oceans produce it.

While colder winters in Florida don’t translate to a warmer world, this is the same kind of anecdotal evidence supplied by climate change believers. Such and such glacier is melting, such and such city had its warmest summer. Yet virtually every major model supplied by these people have failed to realize the warming trends predicted.

So if global warming is a reality, the best can be said is that these people do not understand its cause or mechanism. The worst that can be said is that the Climate Change Movement is a ruse to achieve political and economic goals. Either way, while I am not willing to make a statement of fact based on my scientific background, there is nothing to convince me to buy into this.

Finally, remember this: Our atmosphere is made up of nitrogen- about 78 percent (about 3 parts in 4), oxygen- 21 percent (about one part in 5), argon- less than 1 percent (less than one part in 100). Today, how much is CO2? About 0.03 percent! That is less than one part in 3300.