Obama’s pending Cap and Trade legislation makes taxpayers pay for big and little polluters. Even though the legislation is supposed to charge heavy polluters for their pollution, it sets standards that allow polluters whose accident of plant location,or design, or even function, set their pollution below the “standard.” They can then sell or trade their “credits” to heavier polluters. Should there be any allowable pollution standard? Shouldn’t we target zero pollution as our immediate goal for future generations?

Sustainable Energy need to be carefully considered from a cost and ownership perspective for towns and schools before diving into what seems the easy out:

National Grid’s GreenUp program costs consumers significantly more per billing period.

Some officials from the Chesapeake Climate Action Network recently commented on Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s Cap and Dividend Bill in Congress.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen introduced legislation he calls Cap and Dividend; officials of Chesapeake Climate Action Network discussed it in a Baltimore Sunpapers Commentary on April 26.

A different viewpoint on giving the right to pollute to some and selling that right to others; windfall for polluters accidentally being in “right place at right time”.
Do we really want to give government another $600-800 Billion of our money to decide to spend on who knows what?

A brief discussion of how current ideas are hurting pollution and conservation efforts; what cap and trade doesn’t do and how it is more harm than help to consumers. Energy tax offers best conservation incentive, provides funds for “green” alternatives.

How do we continue our economic philosophy of increased spending and consumption in a finite world? By setting personal limits to ownership rights (caps) and trading those rights. Thus creating a second layer of value within our economy that is specifically created as a mechanism for income equality and sustainable living in a free market economy.