cur-mud-geon: anyone who hates hypocrisy and pretense and has the temerity to say so; anyone with the habit of pointing out unpleasant facts in an engaging and humorous manner
The move toward taxing our use of fossil fuels, generically called "cap and trade", is a bit boring, but nonetheless important.
The cap and trade "thing" would see the government establishing the amounts of carbon dioxide that were permissable to be discharged for each company. That company could sell the amount it didn't discharge and another company could buy the rights to that additional amount so as to avoid a penalty from the government.
The theory is that this will effect control over the CO2 going into the atmosphere and thus help moderate the risk of "global warming".
A study was performed by the Beacon Hill Institute and the Washington Policy Center to ascertain what the potential effects would be on the seven Western states involved (AZ, CA, MT, NM, OR, UT & WA).
In the "narrow" market approach that limits the impact of the program, the following findings were produced:
the region would lose between 35,177 and 165,397 private sector jobs
the governments involved would be able to hire another 19,710 employees to manage the programs
investment in the region would drop by $1.6 billion to $4.5 billion
total personal income would diminish by $10.2 billion to a new level of $47.71 billion per year
Both our governor and the president have proposed that "cap and trade" programs be initiated. In the most robust of economic times, this would be a questionable action from my perspective. In the current economic environment, it seems we would be seeking a total melt-down.