Holmes Hummel, a Stanford PhD and Congressional Science Fellow for Rep. Jay Inslee, has put together two PowerPoint presentations, one brief, one longer. She says: "These overview pieces are for The Curious & Concerned, a growing number of people who understand the importance of a federal climate policy but are confused by the framework of the current proposals."
The slideshows explain cap-and-trade legislation through an analogy with musical chairs, which turns out to work bizarrely well. It's worth spreading around.
I've taken the liberty of using a service called SlideShare to convert the presentations into Flash and embed them here. (If you want to see full-screen versions, click over to the Slideshare site; if you want to see animation effects, watch the original PPTs.)
Here's the short introduction:
And here's the full presentation:
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 3:36 pm
06 Dec 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 11:42 pm
06 Dec 2007
The US reduction targets on slide 18 appear under the heading: "To avoid the worst climate impacts, the U.S. must eliminate at least 80% of its emissions by 2050."
Well, no. To avoid the worst climate impacts the U.S. must lead an international effort that will eliminate at least 80% of global emissions (and much sooner than 2050). Reducing domestic emissions is merely putting our own house in order before returning to the global stage.
The analogy only works if all major emitting nations are playing and the major international corporations are not allowed to sneak into other rooms where no one is taking chairs away.
The justification for cap & trade is specious to begin with. It is designed to reduce private sector opposition by cloaking governmental intervention in the guise of the free market. As a practical matter, it can only work if it is enforced, and if it is enforced it will be ferociously opposed.
The best way to illustrate this is to compare emissions cap & trade with the only alternative that can guarantee reductions in fossil fuel use; a cap and phase-down on oil, gas and coal extractions. A supply-side solution (see http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/20/113733/015) would be far easier to establish and enforce, as there are a just a handful of extractions companies and limited number of major mines and fields. A stepped reduction on extractions would be a more limited market intervention and ensure reductions on the scale and timetable now required.
"But that's impossible!" is the universal reaction. If so, then cap & trade won't work either, because it must reduce fossil fuel use at the same rate (carbon sequestration aside).
Ken Ward
ken[at]brightlines.org
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 3:12 am
07 Dec 2007
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/5/102441/300#com ...
Clearly it must be a global policy with minor leakage to succeed.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:54 am
07 Dec 2007
Dude, read into it just a little bit more.
If the cap-and-trade uses allocated permits THEN it would have those negative results.
If it used AUCTIONED permits, then it would not have those problems.
_
The whole point of that scenario was to give the impression that allocation is the wrong way to do cap and trade. Not that cap and trade is inheriently wrong.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 4:40 am
07 Dec 2007
If the cap-and-trade uses allocated permits THEN it would have those negative results.
If it used AUCTIONED permits, then it would not have those problems.
Dude, did you notice that the Liberman plan gives most credits to the big polluters free of charge?
There are two possibilities;
1 Do what's best for the environment.
2 Do what's best for fund raising.
I just do not share your faith that congress will choose #1.
Simply requiring emitters to pay for the damage their emissions do is the most simple transparent and efficient way to modify the system.
Use the funds collected to accelerate the development of better technology.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:47 am
07 Dec 2007
Congress will set an appropriate tax. And studiously continue to set an appropriate tax.
Congress will appropriate spend that tax on something which won't be just a money pit.
(i.e. Coal Sequestration, BioFuels, Hydrogen)
Permalink