Cheaper clean energy

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bill Pekny Midway, UT
    June 20, 2017 5:20 p.m.

    Spot on, "What In The Tucket?" and "lost in DC!"

    CO2 is a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, but it is not a pollutant.

    CO2 and water vapor, are greenhouse gases, but they warm our planet only slightly and beneficially, not catastrophically. And what little warming that does come from the greenhouse effect is mostly a result of big brother, water vapor, not CO2.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    June 17, 2017 10:04 a.m.

    Carbon dioxide CO2 is not a pollutant. It is beneficial and crops are better as the amount rises. Climate change is due to variations in the sun's out put and only a tiny effect from CO2. 31,000 scientists of whom 9,000 had Ph. D's said man probably not a factor in climate change. CERN foremost particle physics lab in France near the Swiss border says temperature forecasts should be down graded. Northern Europe had its worst winter in decades. It may be we are going to a lowering of ambient temperature not good.
    The problem is nitrogen and sulfur oxides they are pollutants from fossil fuel burning, Coal mitigation is reasonably priced if CO2 is not taken out. Trains, diesels, all trucks, buses should be on natural gas as it has almost no toxic emissions. Cars can go to electric,

  • libs think what??? Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2017 8:47 a.m.

    Tyler D
    so if a company's employees have to breathe, if it's production processes require air, who do they pay for that? How are those "production costs" captured?

    we all exhale CO2 22 thousand times a day. Are you saying we should be taxed for the cost of producing the energy required to keep ourselves alive?

    calling CO2 emissions a production cost is like calling hitler a phylanthropist.

    No one is "owed" anything for emissions. Govt is right to place controls over toxic emissions, but CO2 is not toxic.

    but thanks for admitting dudd and frank were both in bed with bad bankers and their bill was a failure. there I agreed with hilary, the big banks should have been busted up.

  • Tyler D Prescott, AZ
    June 16, 2017 1:20 p.m.

    What is bad economics is not accounting (in the price of your product) all the costs associated with producing that product – and pollution/greenhouse gas is a cost. To believe otherwise is promote crony capitalism masquerading as real (i.e., Adam Smith) capitalism.

    When industries are allowed to ignore certain costs (e.g., externalities) they are essentially privatizing their profits and socializing their costs. And as any true conservative will tell you, socialism is a bad thing.

    This is precisely what happens repeatedly in the financial industry and what the most conservative members of Congress publicly decry regularly - though behind the scenes they seem to do everything in their power to continue this wealth destroying, financial boom-bust cycle (see the recently House passed CHOICE Act).

    This btw is one of the many ideological overlaps between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. The fact that we have yet to see true banking reform (Dodd-Frank was severely watered down by the financial lobby) should tell us all we need to know about the true masters of our public servants.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2017 12:48 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    We get PM2.5 alongside a lot of our carbon emissions in the Salt Lake valley. That one is a pollutant.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 16, 2017 11:15 a.m.

    Carbon dioxide is colorless, odorless, and non-toxic. Doesn’t sound like a pollutant to me. People can die from too much water; does that make water a pollutant?

    If we institute Fee and Dividend, what happens to all those who become dependent on the dividend once we finally wean ourselves from fossil fuels? How will we replace those payments?

    Bad economics, bad policy, bad science, bad idea.

  • SMcloud Sandy, UT
    June 16, 2017 11:03 a.m.

    Pollution affects everybody. Companies that produce it should be made responsible for the effects.

  • Tyler D Prescott, AZ
    June 16, 2017 9:19 a.m.

    “Studies show that 87 percent of our MOCs are most impacted by their constituents' input.”

    I wish this were true…

    The study “Testing Theories of American Politics” shows that we are living in an oligarchy; that when it comes to the big “hot button” political issues (as opposed to, say, asking your congressman to help you with your VA benefits) our elected officials respond to their big money donors – or vote in line with the ideology that got them those donations in the first place.

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    June 16, 2017 8:33 a.m.

    This is bad economics, bad public policy and bad "science." A wealth redistribution scheme intended to steal from the poor.