by Barry Dennis

Created on: April 24, 2009   Last Updated: April 28, 2009

Isn't this discussion about Cap and Trade misdirected? If you believe that Cap and Trade is just a substitute for Zero Pollution legislation, why would we allow anyone to pollute; allow anyone to profit from ephemeral "pollution licenses for non-polluting by accident of plant design or type."

Worse, allow polluters to buy "pollution licenses" in a market set up by government? The goals and paths to reaching them should be: 1. No pollution allowed from any new commercial or manufacturing activity. This means that any new manufacturing, extraction of any commercial or institutional activity would only get a license when demonstrating that they will treat all emissions to Zero pollution outcomes, and re-manufacture, transform or design processes to utilize waste streams so that waste is 100% recycled or, if directed to landfills, a charge equivalent to the cost of processing and storage is enacted. 2. Existing manufacturing, power production, extraction or any other commercial activity must develop a ten year (seven-year?) plan for closing the polluting facility, or redesigning and rebuilding facilities or operations to Zero pollution output. Replacement with new technology like coal gasification if we want coal utilization, Tax incentives could be provided to assist in the transition and development process. The Cap and Trade premise is specious; that pollution is "allowed" or grandfathered, or in any way permitted. Manufacturing, commercial activity, and other activities that generate pollution should be "Zero" output targets; with plant designs that emit zero process pollution.

Humans emit CO(2), what about licensing them? Ridiculous, right?

Same for farm and recreational animals, right? Dogs, Cats, Cattle, Horses. So, population control by means of a Cap and Trade for each birth would be helpful, right? Well, maybe not. I am one who believes that lack of population planning and population growth is driving many of the world's problems, yet certain countries and areas are mismanaged to the detriment of encouraging healthy populations, while others are not operating "closed loop" societies, absorbing more resources than they generate. Same for farm and recreational animals, right? Dogs, Cats, Cattle, Horses. The point is giving license to existing polluters is wrong; forcing Zero pollution through tax incentives, plant and process replacement would be better use of tax policy, and lead to better outcomes, quicker. (How about a $1.50-2.00 per-gallon-tax on gasoline, and transportation equivalents?

Same for other energy resources to quickly encourage conservation and replacement).

We could save four to six million barrels of oil a day just though "Cloud Commuting." There are plenty of technologically and culturally compatible alternatives to Cap and Trade; CAP just seems to be the politically desirable approach right now, and gives the government (surprise) control of a LOT more money, a dubious result in any case.

Learn more about this author, Barry Dennis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.