What the Western Climate Initiative does right —and what it could do better 2

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   econfitzgerald Posted 8:07 am
   24 Jul 2008

   Bigger problemsWhat stood out to me when I read this document is that there are a number of small problems that when bundled together make this essentially unworkable.  The big issue that is only marginally addressed in the whole WCI process is the baseline for emissions.  It appears that the baseline for the 2012-2015 compliance period will be the 2010-2011 emissions, (that is the first time when they will have direct reporting data).  If that's true, then no emitter has any incentive to limit their emissions until 2012.  And in fact, they have an incentive to emit higher than normal CO2e during 2011-2012 in order to skew the baseline.
   Add this to the fact that the WCI will not allow any early action credits (except in direct competition with reduction credits during the first compliance period), and you have a recipe for a truly stupid policy.  If this goes ahead as proposed, then no one has any reason to begin to control their GHG emissions until 2012.  I think delaying any and all action to reduce GHG emissions for at least another 4 years is not a good policy.
   And this is all besides the more crucial point that the legal basis for the WCI is flimsy at best, and likely to fall apart in 2009 when the legislatures attempt to adopt the laws.  Without good federal legislation (better than Lieberman-Warner), or some other broader and more legally sound base from which to plant a cap-and-trade system, this will simply not work.
   Much as I hate to say it (because cap-and-trade always seemed like a good idea to me) I think that BC has the right idea for the right way to tackle climate change on a local level: a simple carbon tax.  The way things are going, lobbyists are going to gut any cap-and-trade system with massive unregulated offsets, no auctions of permits, a "safety-valve," and/or simply argue over baselines and the calculations over how much CO2e should be allowed.  An expensive carbon tax is the more direct and easier to implement policy to raise the price of GHG emissions and to re-orient our economy away from fossil fuels.

   Permalink

2. 

   cepdppk Posted 2:23 pm
   25 Jul 2008

   WCI and the cap and tradeexcellent comments by econfitzgerald, thanks for your insight.  Cap and trade seems fraught with problems and room for interference by special interests.  We have already wasted way to much time, there is no evidence that contradicts the current science on global warming and it is long past time that we take strong and aggressive measures to protect the future for our children and grandchildren.  A simple, strong, tamper proof carbon tax is essential. It is clear that neither industry or for that matter the American people will take serious steps to reduce global warming until is starts to cost them significant amounts of money.  Recent driving habits are a perfect example.  The american people did not slow their consumption of gas, start to demand smaller cars, turn to mass transportation or drive less miles out of a realization that these actions benefit the world community or even their very own children and grandchildren.  No, they did it because the price of gas became intolerable and the same must hold true for carbon.  A revenue neutral carbon tax introduced fairly and with moderate increases will bring about that realization.

   Permalink