[Climate swindle loot] Allocation Mechanisms – The Details Really Matter « Common Tragedies

At the end of the day, which system you pick depends on what you think is important. Personally (if you can’t tell already), I think it makes sense to reward those states that have already invested in lower carbon sources of power. These states typically face much higher electricity prices than the rest of the country. My personal feelings aside, there is an equally valid argument that the regions with lower electricity prices (and more emissions) also tend to have a lower cost of living. Large increases in electricity prices in these areas will constitute a larger burden as a percentage of income.

Let’s All Spark A Global Warming Trade War!

So, wait … we get a bad domestic policy that sparks a trade war and ensures no other nation will throw itself off the economic cliff with us? Bully!

Governors: Pick The Winners and Losers… We’re The Winners

As we say around here, when the government picks winners and losers, most of us are losers. The “winners” go up to Capitol Hill begging for the wealth redistributed from the rest of us.

The Climate Sceptics Party Blog: Will Malcolm Turnbull profit from an Emissions Trading Scheme?

Malcolm, we know you have been a Goldman Sachs partner in the past.
We know that Al Gore along with ex Goldman Sachs partners Henry Paulson, Peter Harris, Mark Ferguson and David Blood set up a carbon trading and sustainable investment company, Generated Investment Management (GIM).

And we know Goldman Sachs owns 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Since the Liberal party is looking at the Emissions Trading Scheme and you are suggesting you want to support it, I believe the public should know "Will you either directly or indirectly benefit from carbon credit trading?" and "Will any former colleagues of yours benefit directly from carbon credit trading?"