Secondly, about the news you give regarding cap and trade applied only to power stations
- that's progress!

Cap and trade is still wrong, as explained below

The key is to engage in activites which
1. Are valuable in themselves.
2. Meet emission reduction targets with minimal business disruption and expense.
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x

Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction, for 2020
typically quoted at 15-20% reduction, is achieved by acting on
electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles)
alone, since these 2 sectors account for nearly 80% of CO2 emissions.

Basically,
Power stations have phased-in emission limits on CO2, as with mercury
or other emission substances.
Cars have emission taxation


The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:

1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all
else that's in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or
immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.

2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid
distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills
for consumers.

3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other
energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition
advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil
imports.

4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement,
steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated
countries, the suggested electricity and transport changes are not
just more limited, but also largely local.

5. Less bloated bills - a clearer focus for political discussion and agreement

In 2020
(and again 2030), from then available evidence, either
1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no
value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes
in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit

or

2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in
which case the policy is on track, and may continue with emission
reduction towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures
and can involve other industries, if necessary.

------
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial
loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state
guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect
on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and
predictability surrounding the funding.

Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business
continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared
expense and disruption
- also from not having energy efficiency regulations



-----------------
Why Cap and Trade and energy efficiency regulations are the
wrong way to deal with emissions
Emission Policy Alternatives
http://www.ceolas.net/#cce1x

Introduction:
The need - or not - to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation

1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
2. Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax -- Emission Tax
3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea -- Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair
Trade -- Surreal Market -- Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs --
Allowance Trading -- Companies: Business Stability + Cost -- In
Conclusion
4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions

David,
First of all, about the California TV ban

Are you guys in the 'Free America' or are you wannabees to join our Bureaucratic ban-loving EU? :-)

Either way,
Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!

1. Taxation, while still not justified, is better for everyone if politicians really believe that targeting these products gives any worthwhile energy savings.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use.
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them.
Also, the energy efficient products can have their sales taxes lowered.


2. Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however unwarranted:
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem!

Energy: there is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers - not politicians - pay for energy and how they wish to use it.

It might sound great to
"Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products"
However:
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance, appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other advantages along with the bigger image sizes.


Products using more energy usually cost less, or they'd be more energy efficient already.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any running cost savings either.

Other factors contribute to a lack of savings:

If households use less energy,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don't save as much money as they thought.

Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
http://ceolas.net/#cc214x

Either way, supposed energy - or money - savings aren't there.


----------------------
Why energy efficiency regulations are wrong,
whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
Summary
Politicians don't object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to be true. It is.
--The Consumer Side
Product Performance -- Construction and Appearance
Price Increase -- Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions. Choice and Quality affected
-- The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand -- Green Technology -- Green Marketing
--The Energy Side
Energy Supply -- Energy Security -- Cars and Oil Dependence
--The Emission Side
Buildings -- Industry -- Power Stations -- Light Bulbs