Pirate's Cove

This is the thought process of Warmists: cap and trade, along with carbon tax, schemes keep failing, mostly because citizens do not want them. In theory, citizens are enthused to Do Something about the man-caused climate change scam. But, in practice, not so much. So, hey, instead of pushing something more reasonable why not push something even crazier?

Is cap and trade’s death a chance for stronger action?

Could the death of the cap-and-trade bill in the Oregon Senate be an opportunity for the state to design stronger action on climate change?

Senate Republicans haven’t returned to Salem, even after Democratic Senate President Peter Courtney announced this week the proposal no longer had the votes to pass.

But the measure has faced attacks not only from the right. Some groups on the left have been critical as well.

Jim Walsh, an energy policy analyst for the advocacy group Food and Water Watch, says a market-based approach that still allows pollution through the use of offsets and other policies isn’t good enough to reduce carbon emissions.

“Under the cap-and-trade program in Oregon, we would have had a number of dirty energy policies including carbon-capture sequestration and the use of bio-fuels that would have extended the use of fossil fuels and other dirty, polluting industries,” he points out.

Since the start of the legislative session, groups such as the Center for Sustainable Economy, OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon and Unite Oregon have argued that lawmakers should focus on an Oregon Green New Deal, rather than cap and trade.

They say a Green New Deal would offer a chance at a transition that doesn’t disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color.

What communities of color? Oregon is one of the whitest states in the Union. Asians account for the largest non-white at just over 4%, and they generally don’t whine about race.

Walsh says there’s evidence that California’s cap-and-trade program has led to greater emissions near disadvantaged communities because companies can pay to pollute.

So, instead of implementing a system like that, they want something that goes even further and implements massive government controls. It’d be nice if journalists would ask these people if they have given up their own use of fossil fuels in their work and personal lives.