Proponents of carbon trading over carbon taxes deny that carbon taxes are more transparent—because you can play any game with a tax you can with a trading system. But the point of transparency is not that games become impossible, but that they become more obvious, and thus easier to stop.
When it comes to handing out permits (grandfathering) rather than auctioning them, carbon tax advocates clearly have the better of this argument.
The equivalent with a carbon tax would be to write big polluters a check—not more difficult in the abstract, but a lot more visible than creating a property right.
“For every one that doeth evil hateth the light…” John 3:20.
James Hansen vs. cap-and-trade
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 4:27 am
02 Feb 2009
Good grief.
grist.org
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 4:42 am
02 Feb 2009
as a practical matter, for the next 20 years or so, there is some incremental cost from permit requirements (for the regulated industry) and there is capntrade
this generation will not do a carbon tax. get over it
any capntrade that will pass in next 5 years will be largely useless, with plenty of hand outs to special interests
maybe it is not worth doing
but if it is worth doing, it is for the following reasons
1. establishes the idea that CO2 is dangerous, and should be regulated. and can be.
do not underestimate that achievement
puts in place a regulatory regime that can be ratcheted to some meaningful level when something horrific happens: polar ice cap is gone forever, Australia turns into a desert, whatever
provides funding for green energy and green transportation
maybe it is not worth doing. But it is the conventional wisdom. europe has capntrade. California has capntrade. Prez O says (deceitfully, I think) he is in favor of capntrade. Waxman says he will introduce a capntrade bill.
if something happens, it will be capntrade
why go round and round?
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:16 am
02 Feb 2009
Do you disagree that grandfathering, not every possible gimmick, but grandfathering (i.e. permit giveways) are easier to spot with a carbon tax than under cap-and-trade?
Can you name one gimmick that is easier to get away with under a carbon tax (not any possible tax in the world but a carbon tax)than in a cap-and-trade?
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 6:55 am
02 Feb 2009
99.8% of environmentalists are proponents of getting something done about climate change. You seem to be a proponent of 1) demonstrating with faux-mathematical precision that one path forward is superior to all others and 2) attempting to burn all other options to the ground.
The most surreal aspect of this pointless exercise is that none of the people reading this blog are voting members of the U.S. Congress. It's all well and good to advocate for specific policies, but turning every single subclause into an environmental purity test raises the larger question: what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
A few days ago David wrote a post accusing conservative supporters of carbon taxes of poison pill politics. But Arthur Laffer's got nothing on Grist bloggers.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 8:46 am
02 Feb 2009
"The equivalent with a carbon tax would be to write big polluters a check ..." - You can also write them a check from auction revenue.
By the way, why does everyone seem to assume that "free allocation" implies grandfathering?
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:14 am
02 Feb 2009
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 9:27 am
02 Feb 2009
I ask again: what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 9:34 am
02 Feb 2009
See if this strikes a chord:
John came up with this "and a pony" scheme during a discussion we were having about crazy libertarians...Reason recently published a debate held at its 35th anniversary banquet. The flavor of this discussion is indescribable. In its total estrangement from our political and social life today, its wilfull disregard of all known facts about human nature, it resembles nothing so much as a debate over some fine procedural point of end-stage communism, after the state has withered away. Child-care arrangements, let's say. Position A: there will be well run communal creches! Position B: nonsense! the amount of work required from each individual to maintain a perfectly functioning society will be so small that people can care for their own children and those of others on a spontaneous basis, as the need arises!
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:51 am
02 Feb 2009
The political options are:A carbon tax and rebate scheme that attempts to shift relative costs of fossil fuels. Not very likely considering our current, mostly corrupt Congress.
A cap-and-trade scheme designed to provide some improvement in carbon emissions and a profit channel for political contributors and certain big environmental groups.A "green jobs" program that leverages government money to produce conservation and retail-level solar and wind installation. This is likely as it's cheaper than unemployment or relief in the long run.Do nothing. The status quo.
Of the current options #3, green jobs, is a shoe in on some level. Option #1 isn't going to get much support as it benefits the poor at the expense of the wealthy and upper middle class. Option #2, cap-and-trade is going to be the political football.
My personal take is that a crippled cap-and-trade bill will be pushed through as a stopper to prevent a solid bill from happening in the future. It's becoming less profitable to oppose as buy-in is achieved by proponents. Throw sand at the gears but don't lay down if front of this train.
Supporting a strong and solid "green jobs" program will do more to reduce CO2 emissions since the real work has to be done on the retail level anyway. Better lighting, ground-loop HVAC and solar rooftops will close coal plants far faster than cap-and-trade can hope to. Pushing these programs as labor intensive job creation WITH the added benefit of economic payoffs could be a more profitable path.
But Enron's, zombie, cap-and-trade program isn't going to die if you say the right words. You don't have the silver to kill it. Find another path.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:19 pm
02 Feb 2009
Pangolin, I think you're short-changing a massive government program with a rather small green jobs program. On the other hand, I suppose if you're trying to be realistic about the present political environment, you have a point -- and hopefully some local human capital would develop, demonstration effects would take place, etc. obviously we're a very long way from a 'world war II type effort' that Romm, Gore, et al allude to.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:22 pm
02 Feb 2009
Do I detect a hint of desperation from the CnTers? They seem a bit conbatative and defensive.
The old false dilemna fallacy is showing too. It has to be either a carbon tax or CnT? Why? Well because only the highly efficient power of "free" markets can save us.
Here's a hint Adam, try not to read "Reason" or people who write about "Reason". Gradually the corporatarian fog will lift.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Russ Posted 5:56 pm
02 Feb 2009
or public investment or direct governmental construction or command and control or whatever you want to call it is the most constructive discussion on addressing global warming, in my humble opinion. It's much more concrete, although i think environmental organizations shy away from it precisely because they're afraid of getting involved in theh details -- more wind, more solar, or what? They probably want to avoid those kinds of debates, but those are exactly the kinds of debates we should be having, since it would educate various publics in the process.
Yes, it's part of the general timidity of mainstream environmentalism. They basically agree with the market imperative (they claim that's just political expediency, but this is false - they are actually true believers; that's how Geithner can openly avow that his loyalties are to private bankers and investors, not to the public, and provoke zero outrage among "progressives"; mainstream enviros are among these lemon socialists).
(Also, some of those involved in the debate stand to personally profit from c&t.)
That's why it's a cult mantra that the government must not "pick winners".
But we know by now, as an empirical fact, that the market will never pick anything but business as usual until it goes over the cliff. So to leave things to the market is de facto to pick that as the winner.
We also know what the winning ideas are, and they all involve decentralizing and ratcheting down the size and impact of all structures. Wall St has proven beyond any doubt that excessive size and interdependence are a clear and present danger to all health, stability, and resilience. This applies just as much to energy, environmental, social, and infrastructure issues.
No amount of tinkering within the framework of the monster is going to make a real difference to any real problem. That's why I fear much of this policy debate is scholastic. In theory either a carbon tax or c&t could significantly mitigate emissions. But my sense of "what's politically possible" tells me neither ever will in practice.
That's why I think, if we want real mitigation, then the best bet is the direct route of using the stimulus for investment in sustainability-seeking infrastructure and using existing law and regulatory structures to command emission reductions.
Is this politically difficult? Certainly no more so than seeking effective new legislation.
Maybe it would be less so. Why doesn't anyone even want to try and see if the people actually did give a new adminstration a mandate for real, rapid change?
As I asked elsewhere, why not find out if for once Shock and Awe can be used for a constructive purpose, against the parasites of disaster?
There's no longer any such thing as a disinterested, neutral position (if there ever was).
With apologies to Rush, "If you choose not to pick a winner you still have picked a winner."
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 10:46 pm
02 Feb 2009
big transmission lines through the deserts to carry coal electricity for the big utilities, in the name of renewables
Permalink
Sam Carana Posted 1:25 pm
02 Mar 2009
Such a feebate policy merely needs to insist that, to be applicable for rebates, alternatives should be clean and safe. That would more genuinely allow market mechanisms to sort out what works best, and would also optimize consumer choice and opportunities for local jobs and investment. Feebates can be self-funding and budget-neutral, thus avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and political turmoil.
Feebates are the most effective policy to reduce greenhouse gases. Fees on a polluting product can be tied to rebates on alternatives that compete directly with that very polluting product. So, fees could be imposed on gas guzzlers, funding local rebates on electric cars. Furthermore, fees on fossil fuel could fund local rebates on clean and safe ways to produce electricity. Combined, such feebates would make electric cars even more attractive. For more, see FeeBate.net.
Permalink