If something really is wrong, don't try to fine-tune its cost - worldmag.com 
The simplest part of the concept—the "cap" part—starts with the assumption that if government makes it more expensive to engage in bad behavior, some of that bad behavior will probably disappear. Ronald Reagan used to say, "If you want less of something, tax it."
What Richard Lindzen of MIT calls "a bureaucrat's dream" quickly becomes yet another government nightmare. If you like the efficient way Washington handles Social Security, Medicare, and the farm program, you'll love cap-and-trade.
Did we mention that if you don't manage to "trade," you do have to pay your pollution fine for exceeding the "cap"? And that either way, your costs of doing business have gone up? And that overall, costs are expected even by the Obama administration to go up so much that they are proposing a $400-a-year tax credit for low-income individuals so that the impact of cap-and-trade won't be too severe?
But let's face it. Cap-and-trade just doesn't pass the smell test.
The prophet Isaiah hinted at this when he warned: "Woe to those . . . who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right." The federal government has way more than enough already on its plate without taking on the assignment of building such a monstrous system.
So far, the Obama administration's talk about cap-and-trade is bigger than its action. There's discussion in the White House now about delaying cap-and-trade until 2012.
Let's pray for such a delay.
Haase Comment - For the record I am NOT against a 'world emission cap' program.
Pollution of our air, water and food system is the second largest contributing factor to world wide deaths.
This program does not 'reward good behavior or emission reductions' or I would be on the hill testifying for it. AND the U.S. is a very small part of the 'unstoppable environmental impact the world is becoming'.
The Cold Inarguable FACT - If the U.S and Europe STOP all coal fired emissions tomorrow it would do little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions over the next decade. (see chart below and this data)
If I had a few minutes of the presidents time...
He could not disagree that the following program would have a much greater positive impact on the economy, environment without suffering...
IF families, business and industries were simply given tax credits and rebates UPFRONT to purchase the best available technology (BAT) for energy conservation and reduction in their area (I.e. solar in AZ and Wind in WA, Biomass in WI). The up front costs would be small INVESTMENTS that would PAY BACK, to the SAME families, business and industries that implemented programs.
The UPFRONT tax credits and rebates that were given to these entities would then be paid back through a simple 'commodity based tax system on expendable items with high carbon life cycles' i.e. all the 'consumable non-essential things' that hurt people and the planet would have a 'risk life cycle tax' based on the lifetime health, environmental and regulatory burden. (One could use 'congressional math' to reflect this would create millions of jobs and infuse billions into the economy)
Perfect example: Store purchased bottled water would start at $3 per bottle
- Actual cost of water $.5 (after adding current clean water protection costs)
- Petroleum derived Bottle $1 (98% are not recycled)
- Fuel $1 cost of driving and production energy expended from dock to your doorstep
- Excess packaging $5 average about three layers of Petroleum derived non recyclable shrink wrap on pallet, bulk pack and single boxes
I use this example because when I vacation with my wife and kids I AM ALREADY CHARGED 3$ A BOTTLE.
At parks, zoo's, museums and people buy this bottled water all day long even when surrounded by public drinking fountains.
Water is one of the ONLY resources vital to our existence and we treat it worse than dirt (oh, dirt is another ;-)
Please have someone in presidents office give me a call, I will pencil in a date and discuss saving planet.
Seriously - Has anyone argued my 50% global cost and emission reduction programs using CHP & Geothermal?
NO - Because they can not be argued as a REAL solution to energy and economic crisis.
Along with 100's of other I have presented....
