The following is a guest essay from Bill Chameides, the Chief Scientist at Environmental Defense. He maintains a blog on global warming at climate411.org.
-----
Some folks think global warming is best fought through a federally-imposed tax on greenhouse gas emissions -- often called a carbon tax. The government would use the additional tax dollars to subsidize the development of selected low-carbon technologies. Charles Komanoff urged a carbon tax on Gristmill just last Wednesday, and last Tuesday Ann Applebaum did the same in an op-ed for the Washington Post.
A carbon tax is a bad idea.
First, most pundits see the chances of Congress passing a new tax as somewhere between zero and nil. But let's say it did. Then Congress would have a whole new pot of subsidy money to pass out to industry. Would you trust them to give it the right companies? It's taking a chance, but again, let's say they did. Even if the money went to the right places, a carbon tax is not the most effective strategy.
Subsidizing one or two targeted technologies with a carbon tax would discourage investment in others that may turn out to be more effective. Which technologies should receive these tax dollars? No one has a crystal ball that can determine for sure which will turn out to be most useful. (See our blog post "Global Warming Solutions that Work" for more on available technologies.)
History has shown that the marketplace does a better job of developing new technologies, and a tax takes money out of the marketplace. The solution is cap-and-trade. A cap-and-trade strategy provides the incentive for all segments of the economy to compete to discover the best ways to cut emissions.
In a cap-and-trade system, the government plays a small role, and leaves the main decisions to the private sector. The government establishes an overall emissions cap and assigns specific emissions allocations to the different sources of CO2. It does not tell industries and companies what to do or how to meet their allocations. Each company is free to make those choices. It can reduce its own emissions or pay someone else to lower them. Businesses can profit by coming in below their cap and selling their extra carbon credits to others. Even farmers can profit by enhancing carbon storage in soils and trees and selling the extra carbon credits.
The advantages of cap-and-trade are significant. Unlike a tax, it encourages innovation by creating incentives and rewarding those who lower emissions at the least cost. And most importantly, a cap -- unlike a tax -- guarantees the necessary cuts to stabilize the climate. All a tax does is discourage emissions; it doesn't specify an emissions target that must be met.
Those who argue that cap-and-trade won't work are ignoring history. We used a cap-and-trade to lower the sulfur oxide emissions that lead to acid rain, and we were able to do it quickly and cheaply.
Embraced by leaders on climate change from both parties and some our nation's most influential CEOs (read USCAP's "Call for Action" [PDF]), cap-and-trade is the proven approach and the right approach.
N.Y. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand answers Grist’s questions on the Kerry-Boxer bill
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
Comments
View as Flat
John McGrath Posted 4:01 am
12 Feb 2007
When the government taxes cigarettes or alcohol, it doesn't tell me how to avoid smoking and drinking, it just expects me to figure out -- as a rational consumer -- how to avoid those substances if the taxes are too onerous.
At the root, both a tax and a C&T system are redistributive systems. The question is who should do the redistributing. Do we let the govt do it, who we at least have a vote on, or do we let business ("the market") do it?
And the answer to that question depends on who you trust more: Nancy Pelosi or the minds behind Exxon, Enron, and ADM?
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 4:19 am
12 Feb 2007
It is just as stupid to expect mandated fossil fuel profits in government hands to be spent cancelling future mandated fossil fuel profits, as it would be to expect Exxon-Mobil's shareholders to spend their dividends on reducing future dividends.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:43 am
12 Feb 2007
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/kyoto_long_2005.pdf
I used to think cap and trade was better but changed my mind after reading this and investigating it some more.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:44 am
12 Feb 2007
If I were a CEO of a large corporation capitalized on inventions that use energy, like light bulbs and jet engines, then I would do everything possible to protect my consumers from a carbon tax.
Carbon taxes are not subsidies. Cap and trade is a subsidy.
Why are environmental organizations so jealous of big business? Could it be the desire for big political influence or is it like the Stockholm Syndrome?
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:47 am
12 Feb 2007
The Sky Trust has long since proposed this as part of a permit auctioning system. (I refer to it as permit auctioning rather than cap and trade, cause most polluters would buy permits as they need them, so there would not be a whole lot of trading going on.)
For various reasons, I still prefer a carbon tax (less volatility, less red tape, more transparency, less room for changes that undermine the system to happen off the radar).
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:54 am
12 Feb 2007
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:09 am
12 Feb 2007
One point that needs emphasizing is that incrementally raising the price of dirty energy is not necessarily enough to generate the kind of fundamental energy shift we need. There's a century of dirty-energy infrastructure in place and a skein of fossil-friendly legislation and regulations. There are artificially high barriers to entry in the energy market.
All of which is to say: as our own Gar frequently reminds us, there's no way around the need for substantial direct investment from government to stimulate the clean energy market. Public works projects: your past and your future!
www.grist.org
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 5:09 am
12 Feb 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:10 am
12 Feb 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:36 am
12 Feb 2007
Most of the concerns expressed by Chameides involve giving that tax money to the government who would just fuck everything up. Giving the money back to consumers with tax relief in other places would fix his concerns.
The weak link with government investment is that it may all go to something like nuclear, or ethanol or God knows what else.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Engineer Posted 6:03 am
12 Feb 2007
The usual basis for tax relief is specific credits/deductions for specific items or technologies.
So, instead of a direct subsidy paid to ethanol producers, you would wind up with a tax credit for consumers to purchase E85 vehicles. The end result is pretty much the same.
The other problem with federal tax relief is it's one size fits all. So, while a tax break for solar PV cells might make a lot of sense in CA, AZ, NV and other locals, as sunflower has pointed out ad nauseum, it isn't particularly effective in the Pacific Northwest.
Even if the money doesn't go directly to the government, they still write the rules.
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:06 am
12 Feb 2007
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
BChameides Posted 6:18 am
12 Feb 2007
First, how a cap-and-trade differs from a tax in terms of consequences... Nordhaus is a world-class economist, but even he never addresses the fact that a carbon tax cannot meet the essential need of good climate legislation: a guarantee that specific emission targets will be met.
No one knows what level of taxation will cause the necessary behavioral changes to get the carbon emissions cuts we need. I'm not a political expert or an economist, but it's a safe bet that the tax will have to be very high - a non-starter in Congress. Given that climate change is urgent, we should go for the option that (1) guarantees the results we need, and (2) can pass Congress.
Secondly, it's not a question of who you trust, but which mechanism can work most effectively. The market - not individual CEOs, but thousands of venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and traders looking for profit - does a better job at finding and funding solutions. They also have access to a lot more money. And as for government subsidies - look at the historical facts: Congress has been picking favored energy technologies for subsidies for decades, and it hasn't solved the problem.
Cap-and-trade is not just theory. We used it to address acid rain and we met targets ahead of schedule and at 30% of costs. At the time there were lots of people, businesses and environmentalists, who said it would never work, it would be an economic disaster. As it turned out, they were wrong.
www.climate411.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:34 am
12 Feb 2007
definitely the weakness of the tax is that it doesn't guarantee a precise reduction in CO2, but as Nordhaus points out, the cap and trade really doesn't either because of the leakage and difficulty with monitoring and enforcement
a tax works on exactly the same varied market incentives that a cap and trade would, but it has the benefit of not falling prey to "grandfathering" which is highly likely with CO2 permits- the tax is set and all actors are immediately affected- also, like permits, they can be phases in over time
yes, a carbon tax would have to be high and that would be politically difficult but again, if paired with major tax DECREASES for the middle class it could work. also, a tough cap and trade would dramatically raise the price of CO2 and have the same effect as a tax anyway, which is why almost all of the proposals have "escape valves" that weaken the system from the start
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:58 am
12 Feb 2007
Since H20 is the most important greenhouse gas, shouldn't we have a Water Tax?
--John Bailo, Chief Scientist, The Texeme Construct
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 8:18 am
12 Feb 2007
I'm not sure this statement is correct: "Unlike a tax, it encourages innovation by creating incentives and rewarding those who lower emissions at the least cost."
A tax simply puts a price on emissions, so companies that can reduce them will have to pay less tax.. this creates an incentive for cleaner technologies, much the same way a cap-and-trade would.
Setting the tax amount would be difficult, but so is allocating the right amount of permits. I think the advantages of a tax are:
it's easier to apply (no allocation or trading system needed)
It can cut across ALL sectors of the economy, preventing playing favourites
the gov't revenues can be applied to reduce other taxes - NOT necessarily directed to subsidize a few technologies.
The cap-and-trade system could work as well, and some businesses favour it because they generally dislike taxes and see it as more 'market-based' somehow, but I don't think the essay above makes a very strong argument.
Permalink
BChameides Posted 2:39 am
13 Feb 2007
Leakage refers to the tendency for emissions to "leak" from a capped system to an uncapped system. This happens when manufacturers move production to an uncapped country so they can meet demand without incurring the increased costs of the cap. It is important to note that Nordhaus only brings this up as a problem for Kyoto, where developed economies are capped and developing are not. Within the US, cap leakage would not, by definition, be a problem.
In the absence of an international regime, there would be a tendency for leakage outside the US. But the same would occur for a carbon tax! If some countries had a carbon tax and others did not, there would be a tendency for production and emissions to move to the countries without the tax. That's why we need an international regime. And the best way to make that happen is for the US to have its own meaningful climate policy. Hopefully, we can all, at least, agree on that.
Difficulties re monitoring, enforcement: Yes there are complications associated with implementing cap-and-trade, but they are manageable. I'm not trying to say cap and trade won't be complicated, but a tax is no walk in the park either.
Grandfathering: There are a variety of ways to implement a cap-and-trade, and not all are based on allocating allowances based on historical emissions. Systems can even be developed that reward early actors, and penalize companies that try to game the system by jacking up their emissions at the last minute.
Costs: Both a tax and a cap-and-trade can raise costs. It's a question of which is the most cost-effective path - history suggests it is cap-and-trade. And finally don't forget we are talking about avoiding dangerous climate change. ONLY a cap can guarantee that we will meet emissions targets.
www.climate411.org
Permalink
BChameides Posted 2:53 am
13 Feb 2007
www.climate411.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:36 am
13 Feb 2007
Cap and Trade appears to have corporate support, so most likely some form of it will be passed. In the form that is passed it will probably not reduce GHGs, mainly because industry lobbyists will write the laws instituting it.
Tax credits to consumers of renewable energy and renewable energy and conservation devices could actually reduce GHGs. All payed for with cuts in subsidies to agribizz fuel farming and fossil and nuclear energy industries.
This would take a huge grass roots effort to reform lobbying corruption and energy policy. But I just don't see any other way forward.
Cap and trade or carbon taxes will be manipulated by industry lobbying, it is all too complicated to moniter and will be used to maintain the status quo corporate power structure.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
vtaylor100 Posted 5:40 am
13 Feb 2007
A previous commenter referenced an outstanding analysis of these alternatives by economist William Nordhaus:
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/kyoto_long_2005.pdf
Permalink
brothergrimm Posted 7:38 am
13 Feb 2007
From my viewpoint - if cap and trade has a greater political shot, and we all know we need to act soon, let's get something going!
Permalink
greenfire Posted 8:01 am
13 Feb 2007
A little understood aspect of this advocacy is a possible conflict of interest they might have in the outcome. ED was instrumental in creating Environmental Resources Trust, which is helping to promote and profit from carbon trading. They share board members in common, and a common interest in working closely with some of the big multinational corporations.
Enron was one of their first big supporters before their demise.
It would help if ED could disclose to the public its financial interest via various board members of these organizations in ensuring carbon trading is embraced--rather than a carbon tax--by the world.
Internal documents show they were attempting to create a "herd effect" around carbon trading in 1997, which they have all but succeeded in doing 10 years later with the CAP program.
See the article written on the issue by Greg Palast way back in 1999 at:
http://www.gregpalast.com/fill-your-lungs-its-only-borrow ...
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 8:21 am
13 Feb 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:48 am
13 Feb 2007
Permalink
ddriesen Posted 10:57 am
13 Feb 2007
The idea that cap and trade relies on the market and taxes, or for that matter traditional regulation, does not is just wrong. Cap and trade changes the existing market by mandating emission reductions, but allows those with caps to pay others to reduce in their stead. Traditional regulation creates a market in the purchase of pollution control equipment needed to meet standards. And taxes creates an economic incentive to pay for equipment or other changes to reduce emissions.
It's fine to recognize that cap and trade has the greatest potential at the moment to gain traction in the current U.S. political climate. But a bit of realism about the relative merits of mechanisms will pay dividends in the long run.
David M. Driesen
Angela S. Cooney Professor
Syracuse University College of Law
Permalink
birdboy Posted 11:44 am
13 Feb 2007
With the currently weakened (pathetic) EPA we have now (thanks, GWB and Republican leadership), can we really believe that setting a cap will work? EPA is in court trying to fight the idea of monitoring GHG as we blog! A tax could be on the fossile fuel itself- purchases are easily monitored, emissions- not so much.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
BChameides Posted 11:29 pm
15 Feb 2007
Sorry, there's neither smoke nor fire here. Environmental Defense is strictly nonpartisan. We take pride in the fact that we partner with unlikely allies to reach important environmental goals such as the elimination of Styrofoam packaging in fast food restaurants (McDonalds), and the development of a new generation of clean and more efficient delivery trucks (FedEx).
We are also proud of the role we played in launching the Environmental Resources Trust (ERT), a non-profit organization dedicated to developing market mechanisms to address environmental problems. Note that once ERT reached maturity, Environmental Defense severed all official ties with it. No member of our Board or staff currently works for or serves on the Board of ERT. (See the list of current ERT board members.)
Environmental Defense adheres to strict ethical guidelines. We meet all 20 standards for charity accountability set by the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance (see report). The fifth standard specifically bars any transaction in which a board or staff member has a conflicting material interest.
Environmental Defense also does not accept money or donations from any business or corporation that we partner with, that stands to gain materially from the work we do, or that's directly responsible for pollution. For details, see Environmental Defense's Corporate Guidelines.
Our only agenda is the environment. Environmental Defense's advocacy of cap-and-trade is based on our long-standing commitment to fighting global warming, and our belief that the best way to do so is with appropriate markets incentives.
www.climate411.org
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 2:57 pm
11 Apr 2008
Cap and trade is an indirect tax too. To be effective, it would necessarily raise fossil fuel prices but unliked a tax the increases would be volatile and unpredictable.
Cap and trade's main advantage is that it's not called a "tax." It's a way to create a new market for carbon emissions and new set of fat-cat traders.
A tax uses the existing energy market and creates much broader incentives for everyone to get into the energy conservation and alternatives business.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:48 pm
11 Apr 2008
Health Care?
Finance?
Real Estate?
Homeowners Insurance?
Even the automobile and airline industries are in seriously deep doo-doo.
Of course cap-and-trade is working out so well in the EU and nobody's been caught gaming the system right? You could tell us all about those frabjous emissions cuts they've achieved.
Oh yeah.
Meanwhile that unofficial carbon tax imposed by OPEC is choking Detroit automakers who bet the farm on selling lots of big SUV's and pickup trucks. Americans, who are finally getting a clue after five years that invading Iraq does not mean cheap gas are staying away from car lots in droves; unless they're buying a Prius.
Since absolutely nothing is going to happen this year and any law congress does pass is likely to have a four year lag on it it's all freaking moot anyway. Nature bats last and the impact is starting to hurt.
Good luck with that.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:25 pm
11 Apr 2008
Objection to subsidy: Targeting specific technologies leaves possibly more successful ones out.
You can let really free markets choose, without carbon trading. How?
By subsidizing GHG free energy per kwh produced and conservation per kwh, or it's GHG equivalent saved. The best tech gets the most subsidy. Period. So consumers, the free market, buys the tech that gets the most subsidy and produces the most GHG free energy and saves the most GHG.
By taking the subsidy funds from fossil, coal, and agribizz fuel farming the whole scheme is tax neutral. no new taxes. Cutting subsidies raises the cost of GHG producing energy, discouraging it's use through truly free markets. markets operating on a level playing field, stripped of artificial advantages for huge multinational oil, coal, and ag companies.
Carbon caps can be arbitrarily raised at anytime by politicians pandering to lobbyists. The GOP sweeps, caps are raised. Democrats return, caps are adjusted down a bit, maybe, if they have the votes?
Finally, carbon emission permits are sold by the government. That money is used for subsidies, for the wrong stuff. Clean coal, nukes, and ethanol. Then the carbon permits enter into a hedge fund scammed trading system, a bubble blows up, bursts, and taxpayers are left holding the bag. as in the mortgage crisis, and soon in the ethanol/corn farm land bubble hedge funds are working on now.
Hedge funds are not amenable to free markets. They destroy free markets with insider trading and manipulation.
Simple subsidy diversion with direct payments to investors in home, farm, and small business renewable energy and conservation would be harder to scam. Government would only choose technology for it's own buildings and vehicles. NREL would set up tests to verify savings of GHG from various systems. Regulation would involve random spot checks of installations to verify GHG savings.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
factlady Posted 6:10 am
11 Nov 2008
Climate Change used to be called Global Warming. Notice the name change?
The truth is that in the last 10 years, the earth has been COOLING rather than warming. Scientists said that it's actually going to get colder before it gets warmer.
more.....
Permalink
factlady Posted 6:12 am
11 Nov 2008
50 characters is NOTHING!
Permalink
factlady Posted 6:13 am
11 Nov 2008
Climate Change used to be called Global Warming. Did you notice the name change?
The truth is that in the last 10 years, the earth has been COOLING rather than warming. Did you catch the scientists saying that it's actually going to get colder before it gets warmer? Hence, the name change.
Sunspots are on an 11 year cycle and this year there have been far fewer sunspots than in previous years and this correlates to the lower overall temperature of our planet.
Why the ice in the Arctic Circle has been melting:
When a team of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished.
What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth's mantle onto the ocean floor...
The mid-ocean ridge runs 84,000 kilometres (52,000 miles) beneath all the world's major seas except the Southern Ocean, and marks the boundary between many of the tectonic plates that make up the surface of the Earth.
When continental plates collide into each other, they can thrust up mountain ranges such as the Himalayas.
But along most of the mid-ocean ridge -- including the Gakkal Ridge -- the plates are pulling apart, allowing molten magna and gases trapped beneath the crust to escape...
Both sonar and visual images showed an ocean valley filled with flat-topped volcanos up to two kilometres (1.2 miles) wide and several hundred metres high.
Is it not possible that these volcanic eruptions -- going back to at least 1999 -- may have played a part in whatever melting there has been of the Greenland and Arctic ice sheets?
Carbon dioxide is a naturally occuring element. And guess what? PLANTS LOVE AND USE CARBON DIOXIDE! It's very good for the plant life on our planet.
There was a mini ice age in the 1600s but when the earth started warming again, it was a huge boon to humanity. Growing seasons were longer, people's heath improved and there was an increase in population.
What scares me is that the govts of the world have sold us this FALSE bill of goods and will tax or take money from their constituents to fight a battle that doesn't really exist!
Instead of trying to reduce CO2 emissions, we need to be tackling REAL POLLUTANTS and clean up the air and water on this great planet.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:26 am
11 Nov 2008
grist.org
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 6:36 am
11 Nov 2008
Cap and Trade allows for shenanigans as have been affected the COB carbon trading system. These include finding 'sources' that would be shut down anyway.
Cap and Trade could do a whole lot of handwaving without really accomplishing anything.
True, a carbon tax might mean money going to DC, where of course it simply disappears. But at least its a fundamental motivator for people to stop sending more of their money in that direction.
To be fair, it would have to cover all CO2 sources. And if China/India don't get on board soon, it shouldn't be done at all.
Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:55 am
11 Nov 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 8:35 am
11 Nov 2008
So...just as soon as we can convince the American people that another tax would be a good idea, the big enviros will change their strategies straightaway.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:21 am
11 Nov 2008
grist.org
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 12:54 pm
11 Nov 2008
It's a hazardous waste dumping fee.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:28 pm
11 Nov 2008
===============
Why we must be more concerned about capping emissions than trading them.
If there is one thing that the recent financial debacle should have taught us, it's that risk cannot be managed by slicing it up, putting the pieces in a blender and reducing them to a fine purée, and then pouring the resulting mixture into 1 million little bowls that, supposedly, represent a finite amount of risk.
In fact, the meltdown gives us another chance to learn the ancient wisdom of the market: never invest in something you don't understand.
All across the country, representatives of the same institutions that brought about the recession we're enjoying now, the worst economic climate since the Great Depression, are peddling emissions trading schemes, popularly known as "cap and trade."
The claim is that one of these trading schemes, applied to sulfur emissions from power plants that caused acid rain, solved the problem. That's debatable, but there is evidence that the sulfur emissions trading system did work to bring emissions down quickly and with the minimum of fuss from power utilities.
If we stipulate that the emissions trading scheme worked with sulfur emissions, does it not follow them that we have the right model to use for getting carbon emissions under control?
Absolutely not.
In fact, it's the differences between the sulfur trading schemes and the proposed carbon emissions trading systems that tell the tale.
First, there are a finite universe of emitters covered under the sulfur emissions trading systems. Essentially all acid rain problems are the result of coal burning utilities in the Midwest. So there were a finite number of sources, and they were large, fixed sources.
Second, sulfur emissions are not part of everyday life for millions of people, the way carbon emissions are. The whole sulfur trading system relied on a handful of professionals in a handful of utilities, all operating in background, invisible to the everyday person.
Third, the cap for sulfur was a hard cap, in that non-participant (non-emitters) couldn't monkey around with the system and earn sulfur emission allowances that they could sell to utilities that had were intended to exceed their emissions limit.
But with carbon trading, the cap is a porous thatched roof, rather than a hard cap. With carbon trading, the ideas that utilities in large industrial emitters will be able to purchase additional allowances --- in other words, to produce more emissions than allowed --- from non-industrial and nonutility emitters. This requires the creation of an elaborate (baroque even) system for estimating the carbon reduction potential of a bewildering variety of methods for either reducing emissions or trapping carbon and keeping it from entering the atmosphere. In the acid rain program, it would be as if utilities in Ohio could earn the right to amend additional sulfur by paying Boy Scouts to dump alkali minerals into lakes in Vermont and upstate New York because the pH in the lake wouldn't drop so much.
The only way to carbon emissions trading system can work to actually limit and then reduce greenhouse gas emissions is by restricting the universe of potential trading partners to similar entities. In other words, coal users (such as electric power plants and coal-burning facilities such as ethanol refineries) would only be able to purchase coal above their own limit by buying emissions allowances from other coal users.
This is critical, because coal is the make or break for climate.
There is little doubt that all of the world's oil and natural gas that can be economically recovered and delivered --- meaning those reserves that can be exploited at an energy profit, which translates into a monetary profit --- will be. However, climate models based on reserve estimates suggest that there is simply not enough carbon in these fluid fossil fuels to send our climate into a runaway greenhouse state.
Alas, there is more than enough carbon in more than enough places with more than enough coal to blast past the climate tipping points multiple times over, sending our climate into a chaotic new state the likes of which we have never encountered during the periods of human habitation and beyond.
Ultimately, that means that the Earth can only afford a carbon trading system that distinguishes between otherwise identical emissions, and that creates a special sub-system for coal emissions. All other greenhouse gas sources can be lumped together and traded if we wish or, more simply, efficiently, and elegantly, taxed on their carbon content. But coal is different. With coal, we must be much more concerned about the cap on carbon than on the trading scheme.
The lesson from the sulfur training program is that when a hard cap is applied to a fixed, limited universe of emitters, those emitters will operate to stay beneath the limit at the lowest total cost, letting those emitters that can make the greatest reductions at the lowest cost to do so.
But there are no phony offsets in sulfur trading: the only way to get allowances is to reduce emissions, either by removing sulfur from the smokestack or by burning coal with less sulfur to begin with. That is the strength of the system -- there is no way to have total omissions to exceed the cap thanks to offsets that are justified on paper by a calculation showing that Action A in India or South America would have the same acid rain reducing effect as a reduction in sulfur emissions in Ohio.
The world has very little time. If we want any hope for a stable climate in the future, we must reduce emissions radically, such that greenhouse gas concentrations no longer increase at an increasing rate, as they do today. (Or at least as they did before the economic meltdown reduced energy consumption globally.)
Today, we are rapidly approaching 400 ppm equivalent carbon dioxide concentration, increasing at 2-3 ppm per year. James Hansen of NASA, probably the leading climate change expert in the country and possibly the world, warns that we must get a house gas concentrations to less than 350 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent as rapidly as possible. The only way this can be accomplished is through aggressive, strict, airtight limits --- a hard cap --- on global coal emissions.
What we cannot do --- what the world cannot afford --- is to permit coal emissions to continue or to increase under the fig leaf of emissions offsets provided by non-coal users. If coal emissions continue, we don't stand a chance of stabilizing climate in anything like its present state.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:10 pm
11 Nov 2008
Hats off mate :) Brilliant analysis.. You tore into pieces all this propaganda crap that is done by the "environmental defence fund" (sic).
It beats me to nuts why most people fail to see this emissions trade as the total joke that it is. Even after it gets distinctly hammered by climate scientists such as Dr James Hansen for all its loopholes !
Coal is the killer. This is what we should shut down, now or never. It is simple and doable, and cap & trade is not the way to do it.
We should do cap & cap. The first cap is for a fixed quota of emissions for each geographical region. The second cap is a fixed quota on the total amount of fossil fuels that a region can burn.
It is simple, and these can be effectively monitored. There is no overhead about how many emissions reductions each technology is bringing about. Reducing emissions is not our goal, eliminating fossil-fuel-use is our goal.
How each country / state achieves these targets is their own issue.
Emissions-trade is a trojan horse into the environmentalist camp.
We cannot foolishly pretend that it will miraculously bring about a non-fossil-fuel economy. It is expressly designed to prevent such a thing from happening.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink