Big Business to 'Swarm' DC to Back Climate Bill

I'm still not convinced the government getting involved via Cap and Trade is an effective means of curtailing climate changing pollution.

It's certainly not going to be an end-all for curtailing the high levels of pollution; but, just having legislation on the books that recognizes the effect it is having is a huge step. Making it a part of market forces should not be the only way in which we address it, but it will allow for a quicker uptake of action, and a much easier time regulating the initial controls. Think of it as an inadequate first step, as all first steps are, that can lead to more adequate steps.

@OrganicTea, I appreciate that one fell swoop from Congress will not solve our man-made climate change issues, but Cap and Trade will just be a way for certain lesser polluting companies to make more money. Yes, it will put some monetary pressure on the companies that pollute more to clean up their act, but I worry that the carbon market will not be handled properly, and that rich corporations will easily find ways to game the system through buying influence. The market forces I have more faith in are those of individual consumers. If we all support companies that have better environmental policies, we can really change the course our planet is on.

@Unaffiliated, I agree that some part of the system will undoubtedly be exploited by corporations seeking to skip out on taking responsibility. Under any market force or government regulation blueprint, people with influence will have a way to escape responsibility. C&T is a good step forward because in order for the system to even appear to be working, data about point-source pollution by companies has to be collected, and that data will be somewhere and hopefully, I'm being idealistic here, some level of transparency will apply. This would also alloy consumers to make more informed choices; I honestly can't say how Nike stacks up to Reebok in the pollution scheme. I also think that it will give an opportunity to corporations that it would take a whole hell-of-a-lot more money to reduce their carbon and GHG pollution to participate in their reduction by allowing companies for which it easier (read: costs less) to reduce much farther than it needs to and receive a monetary (either direct subsidy or tax credit or what-have-you) recompense. This gives them an avenue to play the game instead of outright opposing it. Someone still has to do the pollution reduction, not just have less pollution, for it them to get credit under most of the C&T schemas that I have read about. If a system is put in place that simply rewards less polluting companies, then I agree with you, it would be useless. Lastly, market forces provide companies incentives to innovate because they can directly profit off of it, instead of simply avoiding fees. Regulation would likely cause at the most a reduction to levels near what is regulated for that year, while C&T rewards companies that reduce more than necessary because you can always sell your credit.