Fight global warming, get $1,100 a year (CNNMoney.com)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Steve Hargreaves, staff writerDecember 30, 2009: 2:02 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A new proposal to curb global warming could jump start stalled Senate greenhouse gas discussions and put an average of $1,100 a year back into the pockets of American consumers.

Known as cap-and-dividend, the recently introduced bill would require oil, coal, and natural gas companies to buy permits each month to sell their fuel. Three quarters of the proceeds would be returned to the public each month in the form of a dividend check, with the remaining money going towards renewable energy, conservation or assistance programs.

By driving up the cost of fossil fuel and making renewables more competitive, supporters say the plan will result in the same emission reductions as the current cap-and-trade bills before Congress. But they say it will be much more simple to operate.

"The act provides businesses and investors with a simple, predictable mechanism that will open the way to clean energy expansion while achieving America's goals of reducing carbon emissions," Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said in a statement announcing the bill earlier this month.

But critics fear the bill may stifle innovation. By limiting Wall Street's role in the trading of carbon credits they fear new technologies will die on the vine, missing out on needed capital from the investment community.
***
more: http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/23/news/economy/cap_and_dividend/index.htm?cnn=yes




Poor Wall Street, left out in the cold ... cry me a river. :nopity:

[yodoobo]

1. That money should go to research

instead it will just be blown on flat screen tv's. Not to mention that the rich don't need it anyway.

Take the dividend check, but divert it to government research into green technology instead.

[Trillo]

2. What, nobody's discussing this one?

But critics fear the bill may stifle innovation. By limiting Wall Street's role in the trading of carbon credits they fear new technologies will die on the vine, missing out on needed capital from the investment community.

Is it a good idea?

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. The time when 'Wall Street' might be useful is when it invests in technology, not trading systems

The money that goes to the dividends would force someone - the fossil fuel extractors, or consuming companies and individuals, to pay more, and thus give an incentive for innovation, which Wall Street could then invest in, to bring to fruition. Wall Street's only justification for existence is in efficiently directing capital investment in new projects; but these days it does that very inefficiently, because it's too concerned with gaming systems to make a quick buck. You don't need 'carbon credits' to make it worthwhile investing in technology.

[Obamanaut]

3. And when the oil, coal, and natural gas companies are required to

buy a permit to sell their fuel - don't you think this permit cost will be passed along to the customer in the form of higher prices?