Reply To: Cap and Trade

[Brian H]

Rezwan wrote:

Getting back to C-a-T, since the advent of FF will render all the CO2 generation issues moot,

Ah! I see the problem here. For you, C&T;only applies to carbon trading, and so, instead of talking about the economics of cap and trade in general, you go into these climatology debates. These two are somehow inseperable for you.

Then you’re hoping for focus fusion to rescue us from this whole GG issue.

So…let’s pretend it has. The issue is no longer carbon, or greenhouse gases. But C&T;remains! Now, some people want to use a cap and trade scheme to better distribute water in a desert, and use focus fusion plants to desalinize, but still, people will have to pay for the water rather than use historic water rights.

So, would cap and trade be a sound economic way to transition the water rights distribution scheme? Can we think of a problem along those lines? Or will we get mired back in the gases?

P.S. In case you missed it, they’re attempting to get in the first test shots TODAY — right now, or actually as of an hour ago!!
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/test_shots_may_be_fired_todayplease_stand_by/

Yes, but the shots can’t be fired before a few more things happen, which they’re hoping to get done today…but still it’s not a sure fire. Steady…steady.
Like I said, C-a-T can maybe be run backwards to maximize CO2 output, which is what’s needed. A target of 1,000-2,000 ppm would be good!

Water rights will also become moot. Desalinization and other water purification and pumping options will open up with FF.

C-a-T is based on a fundamental error: that someone owns global rights to X,Y, or Z and can sell them (without becoming hopelessly mired in political and financial corruption). The consequences will be not just unintended, but perverse. The Law: you get less of what you tax. And C-a-T is intended as a tax on overuse or misuse, but ends up as a tax on use, period.