Talk:Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • The intention of the bill is thus to employ market forces and make environmental consciousness of greenhouse gases into a profitable endeavor, as the environmentally successful companies would be at a strategic advantage in the marketplace.

Whose idea is this? And how would environmental consciousness become profitable exactly? Does anyone disagree with this? Do they give reasons like India and China not competing on the same footing as the US and Europe? --Ed Poor Talk 19:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Presumably the idea was that of Warner and Lieberman. I am not arguing the point, but that is the "intention," as you see. Maybe you didn't read it or follow it, but by making carbon credits a tradeable commodity the intention of the bill is to make being conscious and utilizing them a profitable endeavor... that is the whole point of a cap-and-trade system.
I imagine a great many conservatives disagree with it, so feel free to add this section back in and also put in something calling it hokum, although I do have to say that for someone who didn't know the basic methods behind it, you sure sound like you're already opposed to it. Maybe reconsider having a hand in this article?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 21:07, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I understand the methods (or mechanism) of cap and trade. What you haven't explained is how trading carbon credits makes anyone a profit. And I'm still waiting for an answer to 3 of my 4 questions above: How would environmental consciousness become profitable exactly? Does anyone disagree with this? Do they give reasons like India and China not competing on the same footing as the US and Europe?
Your "imagination" is not a reliable source, so if you intend to work on this article please be specific. --Ed Poor Talk 09:17, 18 June 2008 (EDT)