NetworkedBlogs
I'm Going To Keep Asking Until I Get An Answer
I know I've asked this question repeatedly, but I still haven't gotten an answer — any answer. So, in response to this column in the Chronicle by Mr. J. Wayne Leonard, Chairman and CEO of Entergy Corp, I sent the following letter:
re: "Cap-and-trade legislation deserves industry support
In his op-ed column on the cap-and-trade legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives and currently being debated in the Senate, Mr. J. Wayne Leonard claims that the cap-and-trade bill is "a good start" and the "best bill I've seen". I'll offer him the same question I've asked other advocates of this program: how much will it lower global temperatures? 1 deg F? 10 deg F? 0.1 deg F? And if this is a "good start", how much more legislation is necessary in the future?
Mr. Leonard also mentions that carbon emissions have a cost. What is the specific cost associated with those emissions, and how do they relate to the cap-and-trade plan? How much cost per degree temperature reduction is, in his opinion, an efficient trade-off? I am willing to bet that these are questions Mr. Leonard would expect to ask before making any investment or major policy change as leader of Entergy Corp. Why should we expect less from our government than Entergy's stockholders expect from Mr. Leonard?
Until he, and other advocates, can answer these questions, I find it hard to understand how this bill can be considered "the best way" forward.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX
Simple answer as to why executives want more regulation - they create barriers to entry. Yes the cost of doing business will go up but so will the company's ability to pass the cost on to customers, since it will be more difficult for new firms to enter the market.
So the liberals pretend to be for the "little guy" and the "middle class" by enacting tough regulations on big business. But its simply a scam to reward donors.
Reply to this
Dave. you ask this question a lot. Its too bad that those who should answer it are unable to. It CAN'T be answered. Not unless (G-d forbid) they spend a few billion and create an accurate climate model. I'm all for reducing emissions where practical. We have done a good job of cleaning our air, but then again, CO2 is NOT a poison (though it can kill) and IS necessary for life.
I understand your angst (if it is that) and frustration. All I can say is 2010 isn't that far off.
Scrap Iron
Reply to this
Allen, I agree 100%. It's sad that people would sacrifice the economy as a whole for special treatment from the government.
Scrap, I'll keep asking the question precisely for that reason: those that SHOULD be able to CAN'T.
Reply to this