Reply To: Cap and Trade

[Brian H]

Remember also, that the Nordhaus study reviewed by Dyson takes AGW as a given, and attributes positive $$ results to “saving” us from its ravages.
What changes the calculations is that AGW is a total hoax, and that there are no “savings” from avoiding the non-existent negative consequences of it. Cap-and-Trade is almost a pure cost with no payback, therefor. A carbon tax is then less bad, but still a simple transfer of wealth to governments, which have demonstrated a severe lack of competence through the ages in using it productively.

Kyoto’s only saving grace is that it’s trivial.

FF has a good chance of “cutting the Gordian Knot” by making energy production carbon-neutral and thus immune from the ravages of green legislation like cap-and-trade. And by generating so much wealth directly and indirectly that all manner of other issues (pollution remediation, drought-fighting, etc.) can be handled fairly easily.

The numbers: CO2 is 3.5% of GH gasses. Human production accounts for 3.5% of that amount, or 0.12% of all GH gas variation. You could double or eliminate it, and it would make NO detectable difference to the operations of the atmosphere (which is only 2% GH gasses in TOTAL, meaning human CO2 output variation is 0.0024% of the atmosphere). AGW is a venal HOAX.