WSJ: Kyoto's 'Capitalists' -- Big business becomes a lobby for CO2 regulation.

...The Kyoto idea is 10 years old now, and no better for its age. The U.S. wisely chose to forgo the pact, as the long- term costs add up to hundreds of billions a year across the world economy, not to mention untold lost economic opportunities. The energy industry has heretofore backed this U.S. decision, noting that even Kyoto's defenders have admitted the pact wouldn't slow climate change....

What's changed the industry's tune at the broadest level may be the Bush Administration's Clear Skies program, a smart pollution-reduction proposal that may pass Congress next year. That program, about to be partially instituted via regulation, requires energy producers to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions 70%. But a natural consequence of reducing those true pollutants can be fewer greenhouse gas emissions. A "cap-and-trade" program -- creating a property right in CO2 reductions that can be traded for cash -- would thus allow companies to get paid for simply complying with other air-quality rules....

Finally, many utilities... know regulators will pass along any CO2 reduction costs to consumers via rate hikes. They also view public support of a CO2 program as a low-risk way of soothing environmental antagonists and "socially conscious" investors.

We have nothing against companies exploiting the business opportunities that regulation sometimes creates; that's capitalism. The difference here is that because CO2 isn't even a pollutant, and because no realistic program will even slow global warming, any market for trading CO2 emissions would be entirely unnecessary. There's nothing capitalist about lobbying government to erect a program that serves no other purpose than the redistribution of wealth, whether it be from one company to another, or from consumers to corporations....

Fancy words; Total Bullpuckey.

The American public is hopelessly stupid if they fall for this one.

Like the Tobacco "tax" modest at first, unlimited presently, business, when cornered, has no compunction whatsoever with acting as tax collector; taxes without limit, if they can get their percentage.

Great! Stealth (useless) uncontrolled Kyoto!

[The item includes the folowing:]
These executives are thinking green all right — as in greenbacks. The real story behind their conversion is that the industry has figured out that a U.S.-based climate program holds profit opportunities, while any costs can be foisted on the backs of others -- consumers, taxpayers or competitors. This new cynical approach to regulation is worrying, if for no other reason than that the quickest way to bad policy is a co-opted business community.

What's changed the industry's tune at the broadest level may be the Bush Administration's Clear Skies program, a smart pollution-reduction proposal that may pass Congress next year. That program, about to be partially instituted via regulation, requires energy producers to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions 70%. But a natural consequence of reducing those true pollutants can be fewer greenhouse gas emissions. A "cap- and- trade" program -- creating a property right in CO2 reductions that can be traded for cash -- would thus allow companies to get paid for simply complying with other air-quality rules
.
For example, both Cinergy and AEP rely heavily on old coal plants that are big polluters and CO2 emitters. But many of those plants are nearing the end of their shelf lives, and will soon need replacing with cleaner alternatives. Since a climate program rewards companies that make the biggest CO2 reductions, Cinergy and AEP would stand to rake in cash from a cap-and-trade regime simply by enacting their business plans.

A "cap-and-trade" program -- creating a property right in CO2 reductions that can be traded for cash -- would thus allow companies to get paid for simply complying with other air-quality rules....

Other firms will benefit by virtue of their niche markets....

Finally, many utilities... know regulators will pass along any CO2 reduction costs to consumers via rate hikes. They also view public support of a CO2 program as a low-risk way of soothing environmental antagonists and "socially conscious" investors.

To me the whole system sounds perfect, much better that any direct law to reduce pollution: it uses the market forces to reduce the pollution in those industries for which it is easiest and most economic to do so. Generally pollution doesn't create any direct costs for companies, but for society as a whole, so it doesn't sound too unreasonable to create some artificial product to cause some costs for those companies.

Altogether i agree that it is by far not enough to make any real difference, but you have to start somewhere.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.