Sure, but it won’t be with that mindset. Entrenched interests will fight tooth and nail, and typically win yielding ZERO reductions and often expansions of pollution.
Cap and Trade works, and we have a real world experience showing it. Here’s a great example from the 1980s in the USA fighting acid rain pollution (Sulfer Dioxide emissions into the air)
"The stated purpose of the Acid Rain Program was to reduce total annual SO2 emissions in the US by ten million tons relative to 1980, when total US emissions were about 26 million tons. In a departure from conventional environmental regulation, the legislation did not prescribe how power plants would reduce their SO2 emissions. Instead, with a phase-in beginning in 1995 and culminating in 2000, the statute capped aggregate SO2 emissions at the nation’s 3,200 coal plants and created a market for firms to buy and sell government-issued allowances to emit SO2. " source
We could have had 15 years of CO2 emissions reductions starting in 2010, but your idea of “needs to reduce ASAP” worked to kill it then. source.
You are aware you’re claiming it would have been a negative outcome about a historical events that actually resulted in success, right? You are literally denying history because it doesn’t agree with your worldview?
Do you see the global GHG emissions going down? Actually down.
The successful implementation of cap-and-trade was on Sulfur Dioxide emissions, and YES EMISSIONS WENT DOWN MEETING TARGETS.
The proposal to use cap-and-trade for GHG was shot down by people like you in 2010 that said it wouldn’t work, so it was never implemented like it was for Sulfur Dioxide. So GHG continued to rise without the cap-and-trade mechanism to reduce them.
Good luck with your optimism.
Oh, I’m not optimistic. We had something that worked, and it wasn’t implemented for GHG because of pessimism like yours.
[X] is not the same functionally in the economies as [Y]
What are you meaning with these words? Are you referring to chemistry, business, or something else. It isn’t clear so I don’t know what you’re trying to communicate.
Got it. I’m doubting you know what you’re talking about now. You’re not able to address the material questions in front of us in this discussion, and when pressed for specifics you attempt to use word play to distract. When pressed for clarity, you double down on ambiguity. I’m concluding you’re arguing in bad faith or you are out of your understanding of the subject matter. Irrespective of which it is, it looks like we’re come to the end of any useful discussion. I’m done, but you’re welcome to continue responding into the void if you would like.
Sure, but it won’t be with that mindset. Entrenched interests will fight tooth and nail, and typically win yielding ZERO reductions and often expansions of pollution.
Cap and Trade works, and we have a real world experience showing it. Here’s a great example from the 1980s in the USA fighting acid rain pollution (Sulfer Dioxide emissions into the air)
"The stated purpose of the Acid Rain Program was to reduce total annual SO2 emissions in the US by ten million tons relative to 1980, when total US emissions were about 26 million tons. In a departure from conventional environmental regulation, the legislation did not prescribe how power plants would reduce their SO2 emissions. Instead, with a phase-in beginning in 1995 and culminating in 2000, the statute capped aggregate SO2 emissions at the nation’s 3,200 coal plants and created a market for firms to buy and sell government-issued allowances to emit SO2. " source
We could have had 15 years of CO2 emissions reductions starting in 2010, but your idea of “needs to reduce ASAP” worked to kill it then. source.
It’s a conflict of interest, it will go wrong or the system will be cancelled.
You are aware you’re claiming it would have been a negative outcome about a historical events that actually resulted in success, right? You are literally denying history because it doesn’t agree with your worldview?
Do you see the global GHG emissions going down? Actually down.
Do you know when the targets for ZERO are and what the downwards angle has to be?
Good luck with your optimism.
The successful implementation of cap-and-trade was on Sulfur Dioxide emissions, and YES EMISSIONS WENT DOWN MEETING TARGETS.
The proposal to use cap-and-trade for GHG was shot down by people like you in 2010 that said it wouldn’t work, so it was never implemented like it was for Sulfur Dioxide. So GHG continued to rise without the cap-and-trade mechanism to reduce them.
Oh, I’m not optimistic. We had something that worked, and it wasn’t implemented for GHG because of pessimism like yours.
SO₂ is not the same functionally in the economies as CO₂, just like the ozone destroying gases aren’t teh same functionally in the economies as CO₂.
You are breathing optimism like oxygen in an oxygen poor environment.
What are you meaning with these words? Are you referring to chemistry, business, or something else. It isn’t clear so I don’t know what you’re trying to communicate.
It means that you are comparing apples to orange trees. You do not understand what the challenges are and what the require effort is.
Got it. I’m doubting you know what you’re talking about now. You’re not able to address the material questions in front of us in this discussion, and when pressed for specifics you attempt to use word play to distract. When pressed for clarity, you double down on ambiguity. I’m concluding you’re arguing in bad faith or you are out of your understanding of the subject matter. Irrespective of which it is, it looks like we’re come to the end of any useful discussion. I’m done, but you’re welcome to continue responding into the void if you would like.
Have a great day!