Surrendering in advance: just how the Democrats roll 3

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GreenHick Posted 2:45 am
   06 Mar 2009

   Erosion of credibility of market-based solutionsI think the level of trust right now is, or should be, so low in "markets" and those who design and run them that we should start with something simple that we all understand, and look to add market-based solutions as they prove themselves worthy.
   Caps, taxes, and targeted dividends. Perhaps a form of green stamp program for ecologically desirable purchasing and investment. Could be a carbon tax, a comprehensive green tax, or a brace of measures. The  dividend for targeted  investments, such as transit, grids, weatherizing, and green stamps for organic foods, transit passes, high efficiency appliances... Or redeemable in an e-bay style auction.
   The idea of having financiers and their lobbyists at the heart of this thing, given what we are now be shown about what we've been taught about markets, leaves me slightly sickened.

   Permalink

2. 

   davedenali Posted 3:00 am
   06 Mar 2009

   The caption to this is incredibly misleadingJeff Bingaman is no more THE Democrats than Susan Collins is THE Republicans.  If Grist is going to pretend to do journalism or serious commentary, have some standards.

   Permalink

3. 

   sindark Posted 3:56 am
   09 Mar 2009

   Carbon trading, windfalls, and consumersThe critical point here is that these credits are money. Auctioning them does two things: it requires polluters to pay for their emissions and it raises funds. These can be invested in research, used to subsidize low-carbon technologies, or just used to fund general tax cuts. When these credits are given away for free, they give firms the option of either continuing to pollute for free or selling the right to pollute to someone else.
   A Sightline briefing makes the point that consumers end up bearing the cost from either approach. This is because unless firms are tightly regulated or in competition with other firms that don't face emissions restrictions, they will both profit from any permits they are allocated for free and pass along the cost of permits to consumers. The analogy they use is a good one:
   ``Try buying World Series tickets from a scalper. Would he charge you any less if he found the tickets on the ground? Of course he wouldn't. Like energy, the street price of World Series tickets is based on supply and demand. The supply and demand for tickets is the same no matter how much the scalper paid for them, and so the price he charges you will also be the same no matter how he got them.
   Of course, the scalper would much rather get his tickets for free - and that's precisely the point. Polluters are financially much better off if permits are given away instead of auctioned, but the cost of cutting emissions and the resulting effect on energy prices will be the same no matter how the permits are delivered.
   http://www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/windfal ...
   
   a sibilant intake of breath

   Permalink