U.S. to formalize carbon trading?@!

[Rob Lister]

This seems about right. Markets do follow leads. Somehow, however, I think this is as dead a lead as one can have. Still, it costs little for speculators to follow it so...why not!?

Hot air is often associated with politicians, but the new 110th Congress will try elevating that unflattering characterization to the status of a tradable commodity in hopes of stemming the perceived problem of man-made global warming.

New Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., support Kyoto Protocol-like plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to trade permits to emit greenhouse gases – a.k.a “cap-and-trade.”

Speaker Pelosi’s and Sen. Boxer’s plans are supported by investment banking firms, such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, that plan on profiting from trading so-called “carbon credits.”

Toward that end, Morgan Stanley vice chairman Jon Anda argued for cap-and-trade this week in a commentary in the Jan. 3 Financial Times. It’s a useful place for starting the debate over what will likely be a major political issue during 2007.

Anda starts out by saying that, “Whether you believe the science [of global warming] or not is beside the point. Policy should be more about risk than proof.”

He suggests that the financial markets are best suited to assess such risk.

But Anda already errs here in a major way.

linky

It's good to be the king, but better to be his middle man.

 

[a_unique_person]

You never had irrefutable proof the commies would invade the USA, but you built plenty of nukes just in case.

 

[varwoche]

It wouldn't surprise me if Pelosi and Boxer supported a "Kyoto-like" plan. But I sure wouldn't take the word of junkscience/Malloy -- paid Exxon shill and unreliable source extraordinaire -- on this or anything else for that matter.

 

[Rob Lister]

It wouldn't surprise me if Pelosi and Boxer supported a "Kyoto-like" plan. But I sure wouldn't take the word of junkscience/Malloy -- paid Exxon shill and unreliable source extraordinaire -- on this or anything else for that matter.

In the article, he made several arguments and points. Do you have any counter-arguments? You may hate him but that doesn't make his points invalid.

 

[varwoche]

In the article, he made several arguments and points. Do you have any counter-arguments? You may hate him but that doesn't make his points invalid.

If the goal is to be informed, there's not enough time in the day to waste on serial propogandists.

And even if Malloy weren't a paid Exxon shill, if I wanted to know the facts I'd track down actual statements made by Pelosi and Boxer instead of relying on Malloy's interpretation.

(As to the part I struck out, please don't presume my inner feelings unless you want to take it to the paranormal section and earn yourself the jref million.)

(The link broke since you posted it.)