Kelii127’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Error in this article

  The 49% offsets allowed is actually a percent of the reductions required under the system, not the total cap. The 49% figure ends up meaning that companies can use offsets to cover only about 5% of their emissions in total.On Western states announce proposal for cutting GHG emissions posted 1 year, 2 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Another good reason...

  ...why a carbon tax doesn't make any sense. If corporations can duck out of their other tax responsibilities, why should we believe that carbon taxes would be any different?On Two-thirds of corporations operating in the U.S. pay no income tax posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Carbon tax/coal moratorium not the answer

  Russ, a carbon tax is not the answer. Simply put, a carbon tax sets a price on emissions, but does nothing to set the right quantity of emissions. Regulators have no way of knowing whether the tax has been set at the right level to make sure that we achieve the quantity of emission reductions needed to stem dangerous climate change. While we might be able to negotiate over time to the correct limit, the risk that we would set the tax wrong and miss the needed emissions reductions is not something that I for one am comfortable with (especially when you consider how likely it would be that corporations would successfully advocate for a tax low enough to avoid any meaningful change in the short term).

  Cap-and-trade, on the other hand, sets the quantity of emissions, and then lets the market determine the price. While there are certainly important issues that need to be addressed when structuring a cap-and-trade system, the point is that 1) they CAN be addressed through sound market design, and 2) that cap-and-trade is the only way to make sure we get emissions to the quantity we need to avoid a 2 degree temperature increase globally.

  Legally and morally, cap-and-trade does not confer a right to pollute. A cap-and-trade system issues "allowances" which are essentially permits from the government to emit one ton of CO2. In the absence of a cap and trade program, those emissions occur anyways, but no one pays for them, and no one monitors them to see how many are being used. Cap-and-trade simply creates a mechanism for accounting for an environmental good we have historically taken as free, and allocates or sells those to companies who emit on our behalf (as they generate the electricity we use or manufacture the products we consume). Emission allowances are legally not a property "right" and there are clear ways of structuring a program to represent our moral preference for maintaining the atmosphere as a public commons which companies are allowed to use up to a socially acceptable point.

  It's worth digging into a point made above: that emissions--while being directly emitted by "evil" utilities and manufacturers--are indirectly the result of the things you and I do every day... e.g. using electricity to turn on our computers to argue with each other on eco-blogs. So in a way, the evil corporations you want to punish are simply doing your bidding, providing you with electricity (or products, or whatever), and polluting on your behalf. Pretty easy to take the moral high ground when we are so disassociated from the pollution for which we are ultimately responsible.

  Finally, a moratorium on coal (to vakibs) is both impossible and ultimately pointless. Even if there were a moratorium on coal, we'd need to get energy somehow, and pretty much every mechanism we have for doing that using existing technology that is scalable has emissions associated with it. So while we can hope to get to a point where we're entirely powered by solar, wind, etc. we are a ways away from that. And, even if we COULD make all our energy carbon neutral tomorrow, there are still significant emissions sources left to be addressed, e.g. tropical deforestation, agricultural methane emissions, etc., that cap-and-trade can help address.On Head of CCX endorses McCain's cap-and-trade program, reveals misunderstanding of climate policy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Wrong definition of a "carbon offset"

  "The carbon offset is a consumer product that you or I could buy, enabling us to mildly compensate for our greenhouse-gas emissions by supporting renewable-energy projects."

  This is incorrect. Voluntary carbon offsets are generated from projects that DIRECTLY reduce, destroy, sequester or avoid the emission of greenhouse gases, e.g. through the construction of anaerobic digesters at farms that reduce methane emissions from manure, or systems that capture landfill gas emissions.

  The definition you provide above actually describes voluntary renewable energy certificates (RECs). RECs support renewable energy projects, which can result in INDIRECT emission reductions, since they generate essentially carbon free electricity.

  RECs are sometimes appropriately used to "offset" indirect emissions from the energy we use, and sometimes they are used inappropriately to offset direct emissions. However, they should not be used to offset direct emission reductions (like those from your car). For those emissions, voluntary offsets should be used.

  Of course, one should try to reduce their footprint as much as possible before offsetting.

  Finally, inflammatory comparisons like "I'm sorry I'm repeatedly choosing to break your leg, let me apologize by funding medical training in Zimbabwe," are ridiculous and discourage conscientious people from engaging in a very positive, managable action that individuals can do to combat climate change. I offset because I know I can't live an entirely impact-free life. I address the impacts I do leave by doing something proactive about them.On Umbra on carbon trading posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses