On 4/11/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing much of a rebuttal of what I said really but your attempt is
> appreciated.
>
> As to Newt's position on the climate and energy, somehow he has
> failed to mention nuclear energy
If nuclear is the right answer then cap and trade will make it more
viable versus not oil which will probably become much more expensive
but coal. In a recent pre-print Jim Hansen said, "Germany's intention
to replace nuclear power plants with coal is incompatible with climate
stabilization." I don't see how any of the proposed credits do the
same thing. So, if you are pro nuclear you should also be pro cap and
trade.
I work in the high tech industry and I have never seen R&D tax credits
work and they have been around now for decades. As for public/private
partnerships anyone remember EV-1 in the '90s? Now I am not against
the credits per se but we need to be realistic about how much good
they do. In short, they are not a bad thing but they are not much of a
good one either. But since no one strategy completely solves the
problem credits and partnerships should be part of a policy portfolio.
The one thing I don't get about these proposals is why they cannot be
used in tandem with other proposals. We really need to be thinking
beyond either/or and move to both/and. Just as Kyoto only is
wrong-headed so are these proposals all by themselves.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Apr 12 09:27:09 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 12 2007 - 09:27:10 EDT