BAY DAILY EMAIL SIGN-UP

Receive this blog via Email

Awards


Voted 'best news blog' by readers of The Baltimore Sun in the 2010 Maryland's Outstanding Blog (or Mobbies) awards.

DISCLAIMER

  • PLEASE READ OUR TERMS OF USE
    The views and opinions expressed in the media, articles or comments on this site are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by CBF and the inclusion of such information does not imply endorsement by CBF. CBF is not responsible for the contents of any linked Web, or any link contained in a linked Web site, or any changes or updates to such Web sites. The inclusion of any link or comment is provided only for information purposes. CBF reserves the right to edit or remove any comments and material posted to this website and to ban users from the site without notice. Partisan, pornographic or other inappropriate content, product or service promotion, foul language or bad behavior is expressly forbidden and will be removed.

Mobile Auto-Detection: Bay Daily

Tracking Code - Bay Daily

« Medication for High Blood Pressure from the Chesapeake Bay | Main | New Poll: Commuter Rail Smarter Use of Taxpayer $ Than Highway »

07/16/2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I put a link to this Bay Daily article on the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's Facebook page, and received 10 responses within a few hours.

The Facebook members were asked whether they agree or disagree with the idea of using cap and trade to reduce nitrogen pollution in the Bay.

Here are the responses:

* I'm all for saving the Bay, but we end up paying these fees. The industries aren’t going to pay this, they just pass it along to us in our utility bills. But this might actually help people become more conservative in their resource consuming habits.

* Disagree. Existing regulations should be vigorously enforced!

* DISAGREE. How on earth could it be okay to say it's okay to ruin the bay if you pay for it after the fact????

* Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "cap and trade" just the new euphamism for the polluters' "cost of doing business"?

* No cap & trade!

* Cap and trade seems to be more smoke and mirrors and money than real fixes. It would be better to push for technologies that clean-up and contain waste streams rather than letting folks continue to make them.

* So wrong. Without Cap & Trade, utilities would simply pay higher fees for carbon emmisions. Guess where they would get the funds to pay these fees- from the rate payers!

* More taxes for us and more $ to
Gore and his cronies,,,,,,,,,,Cap & Trade? NO way!

* At face value, it sounds like a "creative" way to solve a problem. It can be tweaked so that the paying public and their Bay are the main winners. Much of that depends on how many people show up at the hearing.

* The hearing's gonna be on my 21st birthday- things gotta go good : )


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment