The following is in response to our article, The Financial Market Solution to Carbon Emissions, which appeared last week:
Dear Editor,
I take issue with our government attempting to create a new tax and a new trade war with the introduction of a cap-and-trade law. The goal of this law is to reduce carbon dioxide pollution coming from industrial and commercial enterprises in an attempt to slow global warming.
First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It occurs naturally in the exhalation of all mammals and is absolutely essential for the growth and well-being of all green plants, which take in the carbon dioxide and give off oxygen that mammals need to survive. There is no credible evidence that links carbon dioxide and global climate change.
Second, any action taken by human beings to alter the climate of the earth is laughable. There are two groups of people that are going to gain from this bill -- those that invested in "green" industries and others who stand to get substantial campaign contributions from those industries.
Third, contrary to assurances from the bill's sponsors that utility customers won’t have to pay these costs for the first decade, some coal-dependent utilities would be forced to purchase more than half of their allowances when the program is scheduled to begin in 2012. Would these allowances reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? No; that would come when consumers footed a second bill to retrofit the coal consuming power plants.
The solution: Keep the cap and remove trading from the equation: Mandate that the industry, over the same 40-year period, simply limit its emissions to the same levels proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill. Implement a 40-year program of shutting down aging coal plants, retrofitting plants to capture carbon dioxide if the technology becomes available, and/or building zero-carbon energy plants utilizing already developed nuclear technology. It is the states, through their public utilities commissions -- not the federal government -- that have both the incentive and obligation to manage citizens' costs while transitioning to a carbon-free future.
This is where change should begin.
Respectfully,
Michael Evans
Chicago, IL
The following is in response to our article, Mohammed El-Erian: We Have Not Reached Escape Velocity, which appeared September 15, 2009:
Dear Editor,
Regarding El-Erian’s comments, I am amazed that he didn’t think that the first lesson learned should be that lending more than an asset (in this case, houses) is worth is stupid. The simplest, most comprehensive regulation that the Federal Reserve, et. al. should put in place is that no loan shall be made by any regulated financial institution for more than 85-90% of the value of a house, after a legitimate appraisal and after proper documentation is provided by the borrower about his or her capacity to cover the loan.
The crisis probably would not have happened if these simple rules had been in place.
Bill Kelly
Ossining, NY
