AIArchitect

Like many others Mr. Glass, you are confusing the issue of dollars with the issue and interests of the health of the planet.I do not own any stock or have any stake in either company and the problem is that your remark, even though in good humor, is ignorant.

I do not make decisions based exclusively upon dollars or solely upon my financial interests but, as an architect, upon long term and short term interest in the public welfare.

Which is what architects throughout the US are typically concerned with. Pollution is not good for the public welfare and neither is ignorance.

This is from Edward Mazria. "Today, buildings use 76% of all the energy produced at coal plants. By implementing The 2030 Challenge* to reduce building energy use by a minimum of 50%, we negate the need for new coal plants."

As you know Big Oil and King Coal still want more fossil fuel power plants and these business interests operate existing dirty fossil fuel power plants. They represent business interests and are concerned with dollars not lives.

We actually want to reduce the pollution from these existing plants and not build any new ones. Human populations exposed to coal, frequently have higher rates of cancer.

Over an 11-year period (1973–1983), the US built approx. 30 billion square feet of new buildings, added approx. 35 million new vehicles and increased real GDP by one trillion
dollars while decreasing its energy consumption and CO2 emissions. That is good.

So you see, we don’t need more coal, we have what we need: efficient design and proven technology. Without coal, all the positive efforts underway can make a difference. Cap & Trade is aimed at removing the existing economic feasibility of pollution & fossil fuel power plants and simultaneously enhancing the feasibility of renewable energy power plants like the Teanaway Solar Reserve in the State of Washington.

Solving Global Warming requires a "SILVER BULLET" according to Ed Mazria and that is simply stated as "NO MORE COAL"

There are 151 new conventional coal-fired power plants proposed or
in various stages of development in the US today. We hope that some may now be canceled or postponed indefinitely.

People invested in people are taking action with dollars to make a positive difference.

Home Depot is funding the planting of 300,000 trees in cities across the US to help absorb carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions... The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized (500 MW) coal-fired power plant,
in just 10 days of operation, will negate this entire effort.

Wal-Mart is investing a half billion dollars to reduce the energy consumption and CO2 emissions of their
existing buildings by 20% over the next seven years.

If every Wal-Mart Supercenter met this target…The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized coal-fired power plant, in just one month of operation each year, would negate this entire effort.

California passed legislation to cut CO2 emissions in new cars by 25% and in SUVs by 18%, starting in 2009. If every car and SUV sold in California in 2009 met this standard…The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized coal-fired power plant, in just eight months of operation each year, would negate this entire effort.

As you suggest Mr. Glass;
Every household can make a difference. If every household in the US changed a 60-watt incandescent light bulb to a compact fluorescent… The CO2 emissions from just two medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate this entire effort.

We fight ignorance with education. The Campus Climate Challenge calls for all college campuses in the US to reduce their CO2 emissions to zero.

If every college campus building in the US met this challenge…The CO2 emissions from just four medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate this entire effort.

NY, ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, PA , NJ, DE, MD: The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cooperative effort by 11 Northeastern and
Mid-Atlantic states to reduce their CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2014...
The CO2 emissions from just 13 medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year will negate this entire effort.

So the problem is that when people make decisions based upon dollars without doing the math on environment they screw the up capacity to make progress.

Congress is considering many climate change bills this year to reduce US carbon dioxide emissions...

Cap and Trade empowers renewable energy power plants and discourages investment in fossil fuel plants.

The CO2 emissions from any new coal-fired power plants will work to negate these efforts. Cap & Trade is a policy tool that will help the EPA reduce the pollution from fossil fuel power plants. This is a good thing.

cap and trade is a comlicated costly and cumbersome way of reducing emissions. At least in the built environment that we deal with, the simple strengthing of the building code and the energy efficency code, and a push for states to adopt the new codes would achieve the goal of reducing energy use fairly easily and at a much smaller cost. The marketplace will adjust and follow...case in point are compact flourescent lamps...the first one I bought 10 years ago cost $30..now I get a twin pack at Home Depot for $5...too bad congress can't adopt the 'Keep it simple stupid' approach to issues...sounds like terry walker is the one with the don't confuse me with the facts' attitude, either that or he owns lots of stock in Al Gores company and Goldman Sacs who both will make a killing on cap and trade.

Robert, I cannot respond to someone who denies the science related to global warming in any manner that politely captures my opinion of you. Clearly, you are living in your fantasy world and denying reality.

What is the point of being educated on the subject, if I have to deal with you?

Thanks Terry for the explanation. However, I think we all understand how the Cap & Trade system works. The problem is where does the money come from? Me and you and all other energy users. The utility companies will not absorb these costs. The other problem is what information will be used to set the CO2 levels. Contrary to your sides position, there is no agreement on the debate over the causes of global warming. We do know that there is no downside to increased energy efficiencies. Why not concentrate on that before we enact a whole system that I believe is based on a false premise.

Like the acid rain program the intent is that Cap & Trade is to create an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory CAP on emissions while providing sources of flexibility in how they comply. The idea is to reward renewable energy, innovation, efficiency, cleaner power generation and early action while providing strict environmental accountability.

There is no excuse for so many architects to be this ignorant on this subject.

The current legislation will apply to carbon (usually as CO2) rather than specific pollutants such as SOx, NOx, mercury, or other toxic gasses.
Cap & Trade does not inhibit economic growth. Carbon Dioxide is a problem that must be addressed and there is no place for denial of Global Warming in reality.

Although, a TAX is a TAX and the federal reserve bank is actually owned by the people (all of us) of the United States, it may be better to go on destroying the environment, blogging ignorantly, building dirty coal plants, and killing the planet one day at a time until it is too late to stop the ascending damage, ...but I would rather have Cap & Trade than nothing at all.

There are plants that pollute and those that do not. The Cap & Trade approach is for the government to give permits to pollute to all the power plants. Each plant gets a permit to release only "X" tons of CO2 which equals the total cap. Nothing changes for the plants operating at the acceptable threshold level. The plants that are below that acceptable level have a surplus of permits that they can trade (sell) to the dirty plants and create a new revenue stream. The dirty plants are now faced with a choice: either they have to negotiate with the sellers to buy those surplus permits, or they have to reduce emissions by buying low-sulfur coal or adding scrubbers. The reality could be a mix of both. However, if they can’t work something out, at a given plant, they will simply shut down that plant.

The plants that are operating at the acceptable level of emissions or less can also look at their operations and see if they can reduce that number in order to sell more surplus permits. This is good business. Ultimately, when the system works, the overall industry will find a way to get the total number down to the required level in a way that reflects the most efficient cost. The plants that can reduce output the most easily and cheaply will do so while the others will have to look for a better solution over a longer term. If the government determines that it has to make a greater reduction, the following year (they will eventually) it gives away permits with an even lower threshold level.

Once the government stops giving away permits and companies have to pay for them, the system effectively becomes just a tax, because emitters will have to pay for every unit of carbon or seek technological ways to reduce the output. The market (with heavy government regulation) will determine the trade-offs for better or worse.

So the idea is to give renewable energy power plants the opportunity to sell permits to the dirty coal plants so that the cost of renewable energy plants is off set, and these wind, solar or hydroelectric plants become more economical than the dirty coal plants.

Although eventually we know we pay one way or the other, this way is much better than the other way.

What is the best way to diffuse a bomb? The way that you & everyone else will live through!

TLW

Why all this talk about windmills? Conservation is where the benefits will be found: in better buildings; better planning; lower energy use; and lower emissions. Yes it would take a windfarm the size of Texas to power a small town, but only if that small town continues to have the same profligate energy waste as most current small towns. This is a design problem, not a production problem!

I couldn't agree more with what has been stated so I'm adding my support to the discussion. Amen brothers!

Big, Big Mistake!!!
This is a tax on all Americans passed off as a tax on big oil and coal and based on phoney science.

A government tax and power grab. A tragic mistake that we must not make.

Even IF human caused carbon dioxide is causing global warming, we will see minuscule returns for the investment in government corruption and market destruction that this bill will bring us.

I'm pretty sure this is called 'extortion'.

"Tilting at green windmills"

jewishworldreview.com/cols/will062509.php3

Just another TAX, regulated by more government, and payed for by the mass population, who are already being sucked dry through manipulation by the Federal Reserve Bank owners.

First, carbon dioxide emissions are NOT a problem. Forget the mythological claims of the media or left wing radical environmentalists, we ALL exhale carbon dioxide daily with NO issues. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is minimal, and even large swings in either direction create no real difference in the overall mix of gases in the atmosphere. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is critical to plant life as it is a component in their ability to survive. If we extracted all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, not only would all the plants die, but we would die as well, while the temperature would most likely be affected very little. If anything, the temperature would begin to rise without plant life to absorb the heat and carbon dioxide. Secondly, most of the political proponents of cap and trade have an interest in the beneficiaries of the system. Al Gore, for instance, is a major player in a company that buys/sells carbon credits. No wonder he promotes it so heavily, in spite of the evidence that disputes any climate change problems. As pointed out above, wind power has limited application, while also creating eyesores, noise pollution and waste through power loss. Solar power, as neat as the idea is, actually uses more energy to create each tiny photovoltaic cell than the energy that cell will produce in its anticipated lifetime. So we go about spending more energy to make a product that makes us feel good without looking at the reality of what we are doing. This, and many other ideas, avoid looking at the whole picture, instead relying on emotion to drive the decision-making. What is needed are thoughtful ideas that are economically viable, sustainable and result in an overall reduction in energy usage over the entire course of their existence, not just in the end use. The bottom line is that cap and trade will be an economic and energy disaster, and will not solve ANY problem it was created to handle. Instead, the result will be a huge loss of jobs, much higher taxes, rapidly rising energy costs and a nation that has basically removed itself from any possibility of global competition. The Waxman-Markey bill is a disaste waiting to happen. Anyone who votes for it is either a complete idiot or is bent on destroying this nation.

Architects have the potential to make the biggest impact in reducing greenhouse gases because of your role in the development of these buildings. Your authority on the subject should not go unnoticed. That’s why we’re working with architects and other companies that influence the design, construction and management of facilities through an open industry association (EMerge Alliance) to create a global standard of power distribution that reduces energy use and improves sustainability in commercial buildings. This standard facilitates the direct connection and use of native DC power from solar, wind, or other alternative energy sources and improved efficiency through integrated load and source management.

Once again politicians pushing something for their own gain. The new "renewable"energy sources are so damn inefficient; you can cover all of Texas in windmills but only power a small town, and only within a certain mile range or you lose the energy to resistance in the lines. Cap and trade is NEVER a good idea for American business.

James Lovelock thinks:

"Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside."

www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

THINK: FATAL CONCEIT - Friedrich Hayek

Seems akin to selling indulgences to ease the conscience of those able to pay. Unlike the similar indulgence of solid waste removal, the CO2 "sin" remains to pollute the offender.

It's a short step from cap and trade to eugenics.

Take a look at

Murtaugh, P.A. and Schlax, M.G. 2009. Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Global Environmental Change: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.007.

Little to do with greenhouse gases - lots to do with redistribution of wealth.