The entire cap and trade/cafe scams are all based on ludicrous fallacies. Unfortunately anti growth and progress eco-drones are immune to facts and numbers.
First of all the the more resources we use, the greener we will be!
as per the Kuzets Cruve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve
"Another situation where the Kuznets curve appears is the environment. Many environmental health indicators, such as water and air pollution, show the inverted U-shaped curve. The argument for the environmental Kuznet's curve is based on the following argument. In a developing industrial economy, little weight is given to environmental concerns, raising environmental pollution byproducts. After attaining a certain standard of living from the industrial production system and when environmental pollution is at its greatest, the focus changes from self-interest to social interest. The interests give greater weight to a clean environment by reducing and reversing the environmental pollution trend from industrialization. This parabolic trend occurs in the level of many of the environmental pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, lead, DDT, chlorofluorocarbons, sewage, and other chemicals previously released directly into the air or water.
For example, between 1970 and 2006, the United States' inflation-adjusted GDP grew by 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the country more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven increased by 178%. However, during that same time period, annual emissions of carbon monoxide fell from 197 million tons to 89 million, nitrogen oxides emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million, sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million, particulate emissions fell by 80%, and lead emissions fell by more than 98%"
______________
An idea of why growth and progress will save the planet, not returning to the primitive:
One way to judge the impact of capitalism on the environment is to compare the environmental records of capitalist countries with those of countries with precapitalist, socialist, or communist economies. The record clearly shows environmental conditions are improving in every capitalist country in the world and deteriorating only in non-capitalist countries.
Environmental conditions in the former Soviet Union prior to that communist nation’s collapse, for example, were devastating and getting worse.
Untreated sewage was routinely dumped in the country’s rivers, workers were exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals in their workplaces, and air quality was so poor in many major cities that children suffered asthma and other breathing disorders at epidemic levels.
In the United States, the environment is unequivocally becoming cleaner and safer. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), total air pollution emissions in the United States fell 34 percent between 1970 and 1990. Particulate-matter emissions fell by 60 percent, sulfur oxides by 25 percent, carbon monoxide by 40 percent, and lead by 96 percent. Between 1987–1992 and 1994–1999, the number of bad-air days (when air quality failed to meet federal standards) fell 82 percent in Newark, 54 percent in Los Angeles, 78 percent in Chicago, and 69 percent in Milwaukee. Total emissions of air pollutants tracked by the EPA are forecast to fall by 22 percent between 1997 and 2015 (assuming there are no new air-quality regulations) thanks to reductions in tailpipe emissions for most types of vehicles (already down 96 percent or more since 1978) and cleaner fuels.
According to the EPA, water quality also has improved, and in some cases dramatically so.
Sports fishing has returned to all five of the Great Lakes, the number of fishing advisories has fallen, and a debate has started concerning the scientific basis of many of the remaining advisories. According to the Council on Environmental Quality, levels of PCBs, DDT, and other toxins in the Great Lakes fell dramatically during the 1970s and continued to fall (at a slower rate) during the 1980s and 1990s.
The number of wooded acres in the United States has grown by 20 percent in the past twenty years. The average annual wood growth in the United States today is three times what it was in 1920. In Vermont, for example, the area covered by forests has increased from 35 percent a hundred years ago to about 76 percent today. In the four states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, there are 26 million more acres of forest today than there were at the turn of the century.
As a result of this re-greening of America, wildlife is enjoying a big comeback. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, breeding populations of bald eagles in the lower 48 states have doubled every six or seven years since the late 1970s. In 1994, there were more than 4,000 active nests, five times the number reported in 1974.
The security of personal possessions made possible by the capitalist institution of private-property rights is a key reason why capitalism protects the environment. Where property rights are secure, the owners of property (land as well as other physical assets) are more likely to invest in improvements that increase the property’s long-term value. Why plant trees if your right to eventually harvest them is at risk? Why manage a forest for sustained yields in the future if someone else will capture the profit of their eventual harvest?
Markets, the second capitalist institution, tend to increase efficiency and reduce waste by putting resources under the control of those who value them most highly. This tends to ratchet downward the amount of any resource that is not used or consumed during production, a practice that produces cleaner-burning fuels and machines, lower-emission manufacturing processes, fewer byproducts shipped to landfills, and so on. A good example of this is the fact that the amount of energy required to produce a dollar of goods and services in the United States fell 1.3 percent a year from 1985 to 2000 and is expected to fall 1.6 percent per year from 2000 to 2020.
Finally, the wealth created by the institutions of capitalism makes it possible to invest more resources to protect the environment. Once again, the United States is the best example of this tendency. The cost of complying with environmental regulations in 2000 was approximately $267 billion, or nearly $2,000 for every household. Only a capitalist society can afford to spend so much.
____________________
there 4 books are just excellent
The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment's Number One Enemy
A Poverty of Reason: Sustainable Development and Economic Growth
The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy
Two Cheers for the Affluent Society, A Spirited Defense of Economic Growth
4 excellent documentaries and 1 lecture discussing the global warming scam:
The Great Global Warming Swidle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...52680655100870
Exposed: The Climate of Fear, The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...27100321408693
Global Warming or Global Governance?, Contrasting the "facts" of An Inconvenient Truth
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81878429061634
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...10462407994295
The Cato Institute, Global Warming - Some Convenient Facts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...09908361663875
and DDT as just one example of what the policies of the scientifically illiterate in the name of doing good have done, it won't be in the least bit surprising if cafe or cap and trade produce unintended externalities like this:
The Worst Crime of the 20th Century
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/aug/050816a.html
Rachel Carson's Genocide
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4965
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ... Rachel Carson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/955667/posts
Climate change is not an excuse for genocide
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...-genocide.html