Why do so many conservatives now oppose cap-and-trade when they used to support it?

Question

Many political conservatives vehemently oppose carbon cap and trade systems, calling them "cap and tax", "crap and trade", socialism, etc.

But President George H.W. Bush (Bush Senior) embraced cap and trade as a solution to acid rain. His support of the concept brought along enough GOP votes to make cap and trade the key component of the 1990 Clean Air Act.

"Throughout the '80s, the debate about acid rain resembled the debate over global warming, in that there were Republicans who didn't believe acid rain was real -- that it wasn't happening or it didn't matter. Bush, being a Republican, helped get a number of Republican votes."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126280761&ps=rs

The result of sulfur dioxide cap and trade was that emissions were reduced at far less cost than initially anticipated, and the acid rain problem was solved.

So why do political conservatives oppose a similar cap and trade approach for carbon dioxide? Why do they portray this market-based solution formerly embraced by Republicans as 'socialist'?

Answer 1

I think if they feel they HAVE to support some type of emission controls, then cap-and-trade would be the one they support, because it's the most "capitalist" way to do things, but if they are against emission controls altogether then they oppose cap-and-trade.



The current conservative political tide in this country, spurred on by such scientific experts as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, is to reject the science as some sort of socialist plot, and hence reject any form of emission controls. If the political tide changes (for example with a record hot summer in the US), and it becomes politically necessary for them to accept the scientific evidence of global warming, then they'll be right back behind cap-and-trade.

Answer 2

Cap and Trade confined within a country's own borders may make some sense if it is small and very confined in its scope. Acid Rain is a much easier sell to anybody, because it is tangible and scientific, as are particulate emissions.

CO2 Emissions are neither tangible, nor scientifically defined to the point where a Cap and Trade System could possibly work. Do you want the Cap and Trade to destroy the economy or just hobble it badly? The concept is certainly scientific, however the sales job is not easy because it is like trying to nail jello to the wall! The politicization of the AGW debate has certainly assure the failure of any required remediation, big or small. In other words, somebody pushed their luck and crapped the bed! If the AGW story was a slam dunk tomorrow...and Sarah Palin came out and endorsed the "solid science" behind it, there would be complete inaction. This is the absolute tragedy of the IPCC handling of the AGW story. They have lost any credibility which they might have had. I am not saying that it is good or that is bad...it just is!

Answer 3

First, your kiding approximately "pay somewhat" ideal? MIT pronounced that cap and commerce will strengthen the cost of living on generic by employing 25-40%. Obama himself pronounced final November that the cost may well be extensive. certainly each thing we devour is tied to power. each thing will pass up. did you comprehend plastics come from oil, some drugs, asphalt, lubricants, etc. etc. etc. no longer purely gasoline comes from oil 2d, no longer all oil comes from our enemies and one reason a good number of our dependence is on foreign places oil is by using the fact democrats interior the 70's, 80's and ninety's prevented united statesa. from drilling so united statesa. grew to become into compelled to purchase it from different international places. additionally, interior the 70's we've been instructed at school that the international might run out of oil by employing the 300 and sixty 5 days 2000. It by no skill happened. Did you kniow that Oil is a renewable power? what he says oil is a renewable power? he's loopy. Oil is created from lifeless vegetation and animals overwhelmed over hundreds of thousands of years. vegetation and animals did no longer end dying. on a daily basis the Earth creates greater. i visit confess however that I - and noone else - is conscious if we are extracting it faster then it extremely is created. ultimately, supply up on the "we use 25% of the international's oil, yet very own purely 3% of the international's reserves". Obama pulled that previous fact from the 1970's. The Bakken formation has someplace between 18 and 500 billion barrels of oil. Taking an generic of roughly 250 billion barrels - that's as plenty because of the fact the reserves in Saudi Arabia - and that's barely one reserve. we could head to nuclear potential yet environmentalists nonetheless living interior the 1970's push to circumvent nuclear vegetation from being outfitted. meanwhile, France and different international places build them all of the time. BTW: the place do you think of the US gets the components to make a battery that's utilized in a vehicle? no longer the US. additionally, how plenty battery fabric do you think of the planet has for battery progression? so which you think of we've sufficient? think of returned. organic gasoline? it extremely is a fossil gasoline like oil. in case you hate oil, you could hate organic gasoline. Wind/image voltaic? won't force vehicles or production vegetation. it is likewise, fairly costly and that they take in an superb volume of land mass. i do no longer think of you pick to stay close to a wind farm. they're very noisy.

Answer 4

Crap and tax is a tax. How is imposing a tax on something market based? It is an extra expense that companies have to deal with and comply with. Why would a conservative support growing the government when it is far to large and intrusive already. If the revenue from Cap and Trade were reduced in some other tax (i.e an income tax reduction) and if they would have some semblance of responsible spending, then I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it. It is a regressive tax so I wouldn't think the left would like it much but I tend to think the poor should have a greater stake in paying for our government. Most pay next to nothing. Increasing taxes is never good but increasing it in a recession or with actual unemployment near 20 percent is irresponsible.



When someone lists Limbaugh and Beck together as if they are the same or have the same quality of thought just reveals that that someone doesn't know Limbaugh. It doesn't take long to figure out Beck. Bush senior isn't a conservative. Bush junior was a compassionate (liberal) conservative. Lindsey Graham is a liberal conservative.



By the way, acid rain was real but the negative consequences were grossly exaggerated. They suggested massive deforestation. To my eternal shame, I was once fooled into thinking it was a real problem. It just didn't pan out. I realize the left doesn't admit when it makes mistakes and just takes credit for the lack of negative consequences.

Answer 5

Because they are ignorant sheep in the thrall of their ideologues who are mouth-pieces fro whoever pays them the most

Answer 6

It's simple. "ALL" they really care about is political power. There is no room for what is best for the American people, the economy (beyond their corporate sponsors), or especially the environment.



I'm perfectly willing to admit that this is generally the prevailing vice of all politicians, but the right seems to embrace it more fully and more obviously.



_

Answer 7

Liberals can't do math so your whole argument is pointless.



Cap and trade is based on junk science. We only have a little over 100 years of recorded history actually documenting the temperature of the earth. Scientist do not even agree on the exact age of the earth. The age of the earth figure has increased steadily since the 1950's adding almost 300 million years on to the stated theory. A good idea can become a bad idea with a little research.

Answer 8

Because Obama said the words "cap and trade". If he says it, they'll say no. Just like the health care bill contained mostly ideas from the republican bill under Clinton. It's just political strategy to try to win seats in November.

Answer 9

because NOx and SO2 ARE 10,000 times different than CO2. Here are the facts. NOx can easily be reduced, the cost to reduce NOx by 98% adds about .1% to the cost of the final product.



SO2 is very much like NOx in cost.



To reduce CO2, the cost to reduce 90% of CO2 will add over 50% to the cost of the final product.



SO, you are 100% wrong in your statements....

Answer 10

Hell just play the game, that concept is going to be exploited in so many different ways your head is going to spin.

Answer 11

Any so called conservative who supports cap and tax is no real conservative:



Mccain ect..



All bs aside, do you really think some Government Politician is going to save the planet?



Dana, cmon man, wake up!