This is quite possibly the most idiotic argument I've ever heard against cap-and-trade. Why is it bad?
By turning carbon emissions into commodities that can be bought and sold, cap-and-trade policies could remove the stigma from producing such emissions ... the purchase of the right to emit greenhouse gases would likely reduce any stigma associated with doing so. Emission levels, consequently, could rise.
Oh, lordy, that's a good one. But that's from an op-ed in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor written by Justin Danhof from The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative D.C. think-tank.
Could he be right? Could it be that the only thing standing between us and a climate crisis is stigma? We need more guilt!
According to Danhof, just a few more lectures from James Hansen and then Exxon executives will feel so guilty that they will reduce their emissions by 80 percent. Or something.
Danhof supports his thesis by drawing on a study showing that social stigma was a more effective motivator in Israeli daycare centers than were fines for parents who arrived late. No, seriously, this is his strongest argument -- he leads with it -- it was true in six Israeli daycares. [Cue the drum sting.]
Is this guy a cut-up or what?
The rest of the piece is a mishmash of non-sequiturs and misunderstandings. But here's the thing about cap-and-trade: it has a cap, a legal limit on carbon. With a carbon cap, you get guaranteed carbon reductions on a set schedule. That's sort of the main thing. You don't need Danhof's approach, which would presumably subject solo commuters to weekly viewings of an Inconvenient Truth in order to gin up enough stigma so that they'd take the bus.
I don't know, maybe it's true that cap-and-trade might incidentally remove the stigma from carbon pollution. I mean, we'd be assured we were on a climate-sustainable path -- guaranteed by the legal reduction schedule -- so folks might not worry so much about discrete individual actions. Maybe. But I think most of us would see that as a virtue: cap-and-trade -- no guilt required.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?
Comments
View as Flat
Wolverine Posted 9:55 am
21 Jul 2008
Permalink
mleonard Posted 12:07 pm
21 Jul 2008
It's telling to look at the voluntary consumer carbon offset markets that have exploded in recent years. It's not exactly guilt that is driving people to them - it's a desire to "do the right thing" (even if offsets are dubious at best, disingenuous and dangerous at worst).
By openly sanctioning emissions/polluting by giving it a framework with which to operate in a market, I do believe people will no longer see emissions as a problem they need to be concerned with. Overwhelmingly - the mainstream attitude and understanding from consumers, industry, and politician's to cap-and-trade has been to view it as a "silver bullet" - that once in place will solve the problems of climate change.
While those of us paying attention realize that it obviously won't (and several great studies concur), this is a major problem of cap-and-trade. I've got all sorts of principled, philosophical objections as well - but I think we need a social stigma around pollution and ecologically destructive practices if we are to end them - and a cap-and-trade system sanctions them (nay, it allows industry to grossly profit from them)
I'm all for caps - because that is what is effective. But introducing trade opens that door for ineffectiveness, gaming the system and exploiting loopholes. (which is what history has, and is showing from other emissions trading programs.
Why are we no longer capable of creating regulation/governance that isn't based on profit - but is based on health, ecology, and safety?
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 2:07 pm
21 Jul 2008
Of course, in practice you won't ever see allowance prices reach $10,000/ton because you will always set caps high enough to make sure of that. Like with the Acid Rain program. Never mind that the SO2 cap is five times higher than the threshold for ecosystem recovery, and that there are still about 20,000 premature deaths per year associated with SO2 emissions. We're within the cap; we've achieved "environmental certainty" - and done so at least cost. No need to spend one cent more on emission reduction. What a marvel of elegance and efficiency this cap-and-trade thing is.
When is someone going to pull the plug on this blithering nonsense?
Permalink
DianaC Posted 2:17 am
22 Jul 2008
I'm not the type of girl to jump up and down praising the power of the market, but I think with climate legislation we NEED to look at the whole picture in order to put together a coherent and workable approach.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 4:47 am
22 Jul 2008
"Climate change is one of a number of stresses we're facing, but it's overshadowed by global population growth and the amount of water, land and energy needed to grow food to meet the projected increase in population. We are facing a world population crisis."
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:55 am
22 Jul 2008
You make valid points, especially the one that buying credits would be the same as a fine. However, a strong government cap could also mandate best available technology. And while plants are almost never shut down, that would be an option for especially egregious violators.
As to harming those who make their living by polluting the environment: Sorry but that's just not a reasonable concern. We're talking about trying to preserve an atmosphere that's livable, and whether some members of a grossly overpopulated species, who are participating in causing the problems that we're trying to solve, might be harmed must be given a lower priority than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:56 am
22 Jul 2008
You make valid points, especially the one that buying credits would be the same as a fine. However, a strong government cap could also mandate best available technology. And while plants are almost never shut down, that would be an option for especially egregious violators.
As to harming those who make their living by polluting the environment: Sorry but that's just not a reasonable concern. We're talking about trying to preserve an atmosphere that's livable, and whether some members of a grossly overpopulated species, who are participating in causing the problems that we're trying to solve, might be harmed must be given a lower priority than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Permalink