Monday, June 22, 2009

Cap and Trade and North to Alaska

One major thing bothers me about how "cap and trade" is going to save the environment. If it's going to work so well, why hasn't it been tried in the past?
The conservative case against proposed "cap and trade" legislation is it won't work as intended and it's going to cost lots more money. You can debate how much the cost will be, or if you think it's going to be negligible. But how much will it cost to transition to this new stuff?
If we could run our cars, trucks and industry on something other than gasoline, why aren't we doing it now? Is it a conspiracy, the powers-that-be quashing anything that would take away their power? Don't think so.
Whoever figures out how to mass-market cleaner, greener fuels will be richer than Bill Gates. There's tremendous incentives to go green, and the government has been clearing the road. The Wright Brothers figured out technology to invent the airplane with their brains alone, not helped by government grants.
I think back to the gold rushes of the 19th century. People dropped everything and risked their lives for a chance to get rich with a gold strike. They took wagons through the untamed West or boats around the tip of South America to get to California.
They traveled the Yukon trail and froze in Alaska. All for the chance to get rich. And here's an idea out there, that will make you insanely rich, if it would work.
Until that idea is found, let's dig for coal and drill offshore for oil and gas. It's hard to think of the next big idea while you're freezing in the dark, waiting for the sun to shine and wind to blow.

No comments: