cap and trade

You didn't actually expect any of this to make sense now, did you?

If you're one of the few remaining subscribers to the Ithaca Journal, you may have noticed this headline at the top of the front page this morning:

N.Y. carbon emissions cap may drop

followed by this subhead:

Plan could aid areas like Lansing with closed coal power plants

Huh?

If you're like me, you were wondering how an even-more stringent RGGI rule than is already in place would help the local economy.  

(On a related note: EPA regulators are poised to implement a "maximum achievable control technology" (MACT) rule, which is the most expensive ever written for power plants. NERA (National Economic Research Associates) estimates that implementation of the MACT rule will result in double-digit increases in the price of electricity in at least 30 states , a minimum of 183,000 jobs lost every year from 2012 through at least 2020, and loss of reliability in the national power grid, leading to rolling blackouts and brownouts. But never mind).

South of 5 and 20 wondered, too, in a post entitled "Democrats to pound another nail in Upstate's coffin":

Let's think about this for a moment.  If you're a struggling Finger Lakes homeowner, your second-highest-in-the-US electric rate will go up again.  If you're a swell who's invested in carbon credits, however, your net worth will increase...

Read the whole thing.  "Tortured logic," indeed.

Subscribe to cap and trade