Nobel Prize winning scientist: Cap-and-trade will ruin the US economy

Published on October 31st, 2009

Just to be clear, he does believe in global warming, but thinks that the Cap and Trade legislation will destroy the US economy.

He added, “If the US passed a cap and trade and other countries did not, it wouldn’t work. It would ruin the US economy and it wouldn’t save the climate either. So this is a global issue, the global climate statistics are global in nature, global carbon emissions are global in nature, and we really have to have an international consensus of what to do. That is going to stretch our international diplomacy to its limit, there’s no doubt about that.”

40 users responded in " Nobel Prize winning scientist: Cap-and-trade will ruin the US economy "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Hmeyers said, on October 31st, 2009 at 7:37 am

The US economy is already ruined.

Cap and Trade would just be like placing a rose on the grave.

# 2 LibertyLover said, on October 31st, 2009 at 7:38 am

’nuff said.

# 3 Father said, on October 31st, 2009 at 7:46 am

Birthrate reduction is the only fair solution to carbon emission. A world with 10 million people would be able to heal itself, vis-a-vis a world with 10 billion people.

Humans are too shelfish to give up their god-given right to be fruitful and multiply.

# 4 chuck said, on October 31st, 2009 at 7:51 am

#3 – so which 10 million people get to live?

Take 10 million people living in California. Within a year 8 million will have starved to death.

Or, take 10 million people living in some off-the-map town in China, who have barely any knowledge of the world outside China anyway. I think they’d get by just fine.

# 5 Faxon said, on October 31st, 2009 at 8:05 am

But but but…How would Algur EVER get to be a billionaire???

# 6 dohbuoy said, on October 31st, 2009 at 8:11 am

#4 –
#3 said *birthrate* reduction, pay some attention. It probably is the only really fair way to go.

# 7 Cap & Strangulation said, on October 31st, 2009 at 8:17 am

Ha ha ha birth rate reduction and no car rate reduction, that’s a concept. When I was growing up you were lucky to see one car per driveway, and often families with 3, 5, or 13 kids! Now every person over 16 years of age gets a car and sometimes each get two or three! Cap the production of cars, not people. Make people walk to work by changing zoning laws which are now archaic – THESE ARE THE PROBLEM. Mandate live/work buildings everywhere. Start converting warehouse spaces to live/work environments. Stop and change the old fashioned idea of separating industry from residential. You will save so much fuel you can stop wasting energy on windmills, solar, and other useless nonsense that is destroying the landscapes including pristine desert that is not “useless” as some claim.

Or, just keep watching TV for the answers.

# 8 sargasso said, on October 31st, 2009 at 8:17 am

Dr. Steve Running’s parting comment in the interview, called for American leadership on global climate change policy and he expressed confidence that the rest of the world would follow. I disagree. We change on the precipice of doom.

# 9 Chris1 said, on October 31st, 2009 at 8:35 am

We really should look at past success to determine our strategies.

For example, acid rain is no longer a problem. Oh yeah, it was a cap and trade law that fixed the acid rain problem!

Chris1

# 10 jccalhoun said, on October 31st, 2009 at 8:40 am

So his nobel prize makes him an expert on economics?

# 11 Patrik said, on October 31st, 2009 at 8:51 am

#10 – The “ordinary” price difference from the peace prize. There’s different committees.

# 12 srgothard said, on October 31st, 2009 at 8:59 am

How about you reduce the number of your children and leave the rest of us to decide for our own lives? Don’t call me selfish for not wanting someone else to make my life decisions for me. Next, you’ll rob my house because you don’t approve of the way I spend my money or force me to follow a government-mandated schedule because you don’t approve of the way I use my time. If you really believe in freedom, don’t force people to obey your version of right. Were you against Rome burning heretics at the stake? Don’t make their mistakes again.

# 13 Thinker said, on October 31st, 2009 at 9:10 am

You’ll have to work hard to convince me that Cap and Trade is anything more than the newest ‘white guilt’, or ‘liberal guilt’ or some such manafistation.

# 14 Father said, on October 31st, 2009 at 9:24 am

srgothard, you are the definition of selfish.

You want to have what you want, regardless of the impact to everyone else, including your OWN CHILDREN, and your children’s children, etc.

I am simply outlining the only fair method I can think of, and I have spend many hours going over this in my mind.

Your only contribution is to state that your needs trump the needs of every other future generation, including your own grandchildren’s.

Isn’t your behavior the reason we have problems, in general?

# 15 badtimes said, on October 31st, 2009 at 9:46 am

To be accurate, the headline should read “Unilateral cap and trade will ruin the US economy”. I think the headline should reflect the quote under his picture.

# 16 Hmeyers said, on October 31st, 2009 at 10:11 am

#15 for the win

# 17 Bob said, on October 31st, 2009 at 11:25 am

“Cap-and-trade will ruin the US economy”.

Isn’t that the entire point? After all its hard for government to gain more control of your personal life when everything is going good. You need a problem for the people in charge to make “change”.

# 18 jccalhoun said, on October 31st, 2009 at 11:26 am

The “ordinary” price difference from the peace prize. There’s different committees.

what?

# 19 MikeN said, on October 31st, 2009 at 12:42 pm

The cap and trade bill is a nice little giveaway to various companies, all in the name of saving the planet.

Of course it won’t reduce global warming substantially, because most emissions are not being affected by cap and trade.
China is already the leading emitter with 25% of emissions, and growing.
Experts say we need an 80% reduction in emissions. Do the math.

# 20 Misanthropic Scott said, on October 31st, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Guilherme Cherman,

Just to be clear, he does believe in global warming, but thinks that the Cap and Trade legislation will destroy the US economy.

No. That’s not at all what he said. He said that he believes unilateral action by the U.S. alone without the support of other nations would ruin the economy.

But, let’s not split hairs.

You had an agenda in posting this and didn’t want to hurt your agenda with an honest post.

That said, I still think this guy is very far mistaken. A simple carbon tax (which would be more effective and cheaper than a $$$=>Wall St. cap and trade) would create a green energy economy in this nation, spark a new industry, move us to the forefront in environmental technology, and very likely fix a great many of our economic problems … all while making us healthier and less dependent on the oil rich nations of the world.

# 21 Misanthropic Scott said, on October 31st, 2009 at 2:11 pm

#3 – Father,

Excellent point.

#4 – Chuck,

It could be done by attrition.

http://vhemt.org/

# 22 Misanthropic Scott said, on October 31st, 2009 at 2:27 pm

#12 – srgothard,

How about you reduce the number of your children and leave the rest of us to decide for our own lives?

How about if we at least stop giving people tax incentives for breeding like rats? Remember, a tax cut for one person is a tax increase on everyone who doesn’t get it. Someone has to make up the difference.

How about if we increase worldwide access to birth control so that at least the many millions who want it can have access to it? Would you be against providing freedom NOT to breed?

# 23 Hmeyers said, on October 31st, 2009 at 3:14 pm

@ Misanthropic Scott

The countries with birthrate problems are the third world countries like some parts of Asia, most of Africa and the Middle East.

#1 Please explain how tax incentives in the USA solves this.

And with the birthrate of US citizens at about 2.0% (stable population), 100% of the population growth in the United States is net immigration.

#2 Please explain how tax incentives to lower domestic birthrates will stop net immigration.

Your supposed solution wouldn’t even address a problem.

# 24 LibertyLover said, on October 31st, 2009 at 3:23 pm

#20, And where is government going to get it’s revenue from when all the “dirty” corps are out of business or no longer need to buy these credits?

The greens corps.

Don’t fool yourself into thinking this was an altruistic endeavor. It’s greed, pure and simple.

# 25 Hmeyers said, on October 31st, 2009 at 3:45 pm

@ Misanthropic Scott Part 2

There are only 3 universal factors that identify patterns in birthrate:

1. Education level
2. The presence of democracy
3. The presence of women’s rights

In countries with education, democracy and women’s rights … birthrates are very low.

In countries without any of these factors, birthrates are very high.

#3 Please explain how providing birth control access to women in countries without education, without democracy and without women’s rights is going to work and provide one success story country.

# 26 Mr. Fusion said, on October 31st, 2009 at 3:46 pm

pedro,

Your headline is bull as is the editorial you add. But then, bullshit has been your hallmark.

He is NOT a Nobel Prize winner. He, along with 619 others compiled and authored a report that shared the Nobel prize with Al Gore. Since his name doesn’t appear among the Lead Authors, I can only assume his contribution to the report was minor.

Be that as it may, Dr. Running is a fervent believer in “global warming” and lectures on it quite often. As Misanthropic Scott points out, he believes that the solution to global warming must be global in nature.

The only scam here is what you are attempting.

# 27 Mr. Fusion said, on October 31st, 2009 at 3:52 pm

#25, Hmeyers,

#3 Please explain how providing birth control access to women in countries without education, without democracy and without women’s rights is going to work and provide one success story country.

China.

Because they realized that they couldn’t feed/house/employ everyone at the rate of growth they experienced. While China’s population has continued to grow, it is much less than if no actions were taken.

# 28 Hmeyers said, on October 31st, 2009 at 4:10 pm

@ Fusion

We didn’t provide birth control to China to cause this to happen.

The police state mandated it.

Now if you want to argue someone should pay the third world governments to do the police state/mandate one-child thing I’m all ears.

# 29 Misanthropic Scott said, on November 1st, 2009 at 3:33 am

HMeyers,

The tax incentives for births in this country likely are having a small effect now and are highly immoral given the world population.

You may note that in my second paragraph, I said to increase worldwide access to birth control.

As for your three factors, that is mostly true. However, none of them explain why the wealthiest nation in the world, the U.S., has the highest birthrate in the developed democratic world.

I think you may have left out religiosity or some other form of irrationality that gives the U.S. the only birthrate above replacement among developed democratic nations.

# 30 Hmeyers said, on November 1st, 2009 at 4:23 am

@ MS

You are going to hate this and the implications, but so be it …

Average effective education level is a function of education plus population density. This is why people in, say, New York city are very educated compared to, say, some little town in Montana.

The United States has a very low population density, think of the red states and rural areas.

So in this paradox, the highest effective education levels are attained with HIGH population densities.

Which is the thing you hate, hehe.

# 31 Hmeyers said, on November 1st, 2009 at 4:25 am

@MS

In summary, the US has one of the highest birthrates in the West (Israel surpasses the USA, Sweden is very close) because of the low population density which makes the USA trail in effective education level.

And education level is factor #1 in birthrate.

Game. Set. Match.

# 32 Misanthropic Scott said, on November 1st, 2009 at 6:14 am

HMeyers,

Actually, I hate high population, not high population density. People should live stacked on top of each other. It’s more cost effective and less damaging on the land. We can’t support billions of humans no matter what we do. But, we can support a hell of a lot more by stacking people on top of each other.

We also trail other countries in education because we have no national standards for education.

Further, a lot of people even in NYC do not have the education level of the average European. So, not just density, but standards. And, a standard level of spending per child nationally wouldn’t be bad either. Are only children of wealthy families worthy of a proper education? Certainly only children in relatively well off areas are getting adequate spending on education. The results are obvious.

# 33 Alfred1 said, on November 1st, 2009 at 6:32 am

He is right, it will ruin the economy.

But that is what leftist feel we deserve, a ruined economy, to repay the world for our past sins…

But the only sins I see in the past, were those done by leftists…Hitler, Stalin, Fidel, Mao, etc.

# 34 LibertyLover said, on November 1st, 2009 at 7:21 am

#32, We also trail other countries in education because we have no national standards for education.

Luckily, the federal gov doesn’t have the authority to do that as per the 10th Amendment.

As more people are realizing, the fed gov is taking way to much liberty with OUR liberties.

We are a Republic, not a democracy, not a technocracy, not bureau. The rules for governing this Republic are spelled out in the Constitution.

If you are that concerned with public education standards, you should look at your state, not mine.

Are only children of wealthy families worthy of a proper education? Certainly only children in relatively well off areas are getting adequate spending on education.

Vouchers. Instead of creating another fed gov bureaucracy, just give parents a choice instead of mandate. When low performing public schools find their students disappearing, they will have to compete by actually producing something — like qualified graduates.

# 35 Buzz said, on November 1st, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Erm… What part of “If… Then…” did you intentionally misplace so you could write that headline?

# 36 Misanthropic Scott said, on November 1st, 2009 at 6:44 pm

#34 – LL,

C’mon, you can’t really be so much for strong government that you think that education should be completely privatized, can you? Who will decide the curriculum? Will you be looking forward to a future like that described in the movie Idiocracy where law degrees are given out at costco?

Vouchers are the surest way to guarantee that public education will go out of business … to be replaced mostly by religious indoctrination. That won’t be good for anyone.

# 37 Misanthropic Scott said, on November 1st, 2009 at 6:52 pm

#36 – Me (correction)

Oops, I meant small government, not strong government.

# 38 peter dublin said, on November 2nd, 2009 at 4:20 am

Yes there are many reasons why cap and trade are wrong,
whether or not you believe that emissions should be lowered

Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Cost — In Conclusion

As it happens,
if there is to be an emission policy,
Electricity and Transport sectors alone (80% of emissions) are sufficient to meet emission reduction targets,
with measures advantageous in themselves (including energy renewability, and that emissions contain much else, whatever about CO2),
long term funded for reduced consumer price impact,
without efficiency regulation, industrial carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes
ceolas.net/#cc1x
.

# 39 LibertyLover said, on November 2nd, 2009 at 11:11 am

#36, Actually, I am. I would not send my kid to a school that wouldn’t prepare him for a successful future.

And I don’t know any parents who would.

How many do you know who would send their kid to a school that taught underwater basket weaving vs. electronics repair or chemistry or computer science?

Vouchers are the surest way to guarantee that public education will go out of business

Public education isn’t a business. If it was, we would be better off (assuming it wasn’t regulated to death).

I keep hearing from you guys how a public health option would be no worse than the current private solution. How much worse could a private education solution be? Let’s try it out. If it doesn’t work, the public schools will thrive.

# 40 Rick Cain said, on November 2nd, 2009 at 8:29 pm

All cap and trade will do is move pollution to poor neighborhoods. That’s the whole point anyway, rich people don’t want smokestacks visible from their private compounds.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!