[markomalley]

I post this because there is an interesting side-effect to Warner-Lieberman that I haven't heard elsewhere: that the primary effect would be to move heavy industry to third world countries, where they wouldn't have to comply with US laws. Seems a bit counter-productive to me.

But this is typical of the private-jet flying, limousine-riding liberal elite.

(And no, btw, I don't buy into manmade global warming, thank you)

[gridlock]

If one accepts the global warming hoax, and I don't, this argument makes a lot of sense.

US heavy industry is the most efficient producer per unit of CO₂ release in the World, by far. If CO₂ production were the only standard, all heavy industry should be transferred to the US, where it can be done cleanly and efficiently.

Warner/Lieberman would have exactly the opposite effect, and would transfer industry to China and other Asian countries, where coal-based industries do not operate efficiently at all. Uncontrolled coal mine fires in China release more CO₂ than all US automobiles East of the Mississippi River. They just don't care.

Of course, it's all BS. My tomatoes are shivering out in the garden wondering when they are going to get a little taste of that Global Warming they've been hearing so much about.

[RU88]

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions” comes to mind.

[wita]

The law of unintended consequences, is not unlike other such laws that reside in the forest of life, where the blind can’t see reality for all the trees in the way.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Calculate your one-day Carbon Belch !

[jimfree]

He’s green, but at least he can do some of the math.

[wolfcreek]

How would we move our power plants to other countries?

[Sender]

Since I also don't buy into the carbon crisis theory, I question whether the effect of forcing even more US industry into third-world countries would indeed have any effect on "global warming" at all.

However it would have exactly the intended effect of further diminishing the US economy and hobbling the US to be competitive against the third world in actual production.

Ultimately, the factor that will tip the balance toward equalizing "fairness" in industry will be the outrage of the third-world residents themselves, such as those in China who are living in a cloud of toxic pollution and drinking poisoned water. As they attain middle-class status they will demand that the pollution be stopped, but until then, only the major ex-industrial nations will be devastated by this carbon crisis crap, and the real polluters will continue to run amok.

The whole global warming fallacy is an economic and political ploy for "fairness" and wealth redistribution. Show me what good is done for the Earth with all the money from those "carbon offsets".

[Entrepreneur]

This has always been the hole in cap & trade. Net global emissions rise. Net pollution rises. Not only do third world countries have less standards at the factory smoke stack, but their electricity (at least in the case of China) comes from untreated coal power plants, so it’s a double whammy.

Plus, from the U.S. perspective, the company that moves production off shore reduces its carbon emissions domestically and can sell the credit. In short, cap & trade gives American industry a direct incentive and subsidy to move jobs overseas.

This has been the experience of the Europeans. It’s been discussed on Free Republic for over a week. Glad to see some economists and journalists are finely connecting the dots are the emissions growth aspect. Let’s see if they pick up on the subsidy to export jobs. We need more people to advance and repeat both arguments.