msandler’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  A Carbon Market Board of Directors

  
  Gar is right that the carbon market will have ups and downs.  That's why it needs a board of directors who can make adjustments on a quarterly basis, like the Fed does with the interest rate.  I don't think Congress will want to have to intervene regularly, so they should set up some rules and institutions to figure it out.  They'll only be involved if the whole system crashes, like the financial system currently has. Make sure not to put Madoff or that Merrill Lynch guy in charge.

  Volatility in permit prices is a reason to return auction revenues to consumers through a dividend rather than fund programs with it.  If you were setting up a solar investment program, you want it to be based on a more stable revenue source, like a tax, not on a fluctuating source like permits.

  I hope the cap and traders and the carbon taxers stop fighting and become friends (they're really siblings, one is Quantitative and the other is Pricey) because we'll need both, despite the flaws of each.On Low permit prices undermine infrastructure transformation posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Carbon-Taxers and Cap-and-Traders Must Unite

  
  Of course there are versions of a carbon tax that are just window dressing.  There are types of cap and trade that enrich polluters and don't reduce emissions.  There are also good versions of each (and Gar Lipow mentioned some design aspects: upstream, auctioning, returning revenues to consumers, etc.).

  In the end, I think we will need both a quantity control (cap) and a price floor (fee, etc.).  It's not an either-or question.  It's a question of design, political feasibility, and timing.

  So before we divide ourselves into ever-smaller infighting factions, let's try to get the carbon taxers and the cap-and-traders to unite behind the message of "putting a price on carbon."
  On There's a reason Republicans stump for a carbon tax, and it ain't to reduce emissions posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 37 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Rebutting LADWP

  
  Before getting into LADWP's arguments, I'd like to say that the tax versus cap debate is too simplistic. Don't we all drive hybrid cars? Why can't we have both a tax (fee) and a cap? The fee could be the price floor in a cap and auction system. I agree that previous capped systems were flawed, but we're learning that we need to auction 100%, and we need to rebate revenues to consumers to preserve political support.

  Anyway, the topic of my comment is LADWP's arguments. I agree with the author that LADWP is one of the state's main opponents to capping, and they are using two arguments that I call "RPS-first" and "wealth transfer."

  The "RPS-first" argument is the claim that they are already paying for renewable energy to meet their RPS requirements, and they need the money that would otherwise go toward purchasing permits to fulfill the RPS.  But, this argument can be rebutted because the RPS is separate from an allowance price in the carbon market. Making coal more expensive will speed up the transition. The question is how fast can we go, and LADWP thinks, not very fast. But most of the state can go faster than LADWP. Should they pay for being slower? From an economy-wide efficiency perspective: yes.

  The "wealth transfer" argument is that LADWP and other Southern California public utilities have more coal in their electricity mix than other utilities, therefore they would pay more for permits, but when the revenues are reinvested by the PUC or ARB or other state agency, the revenues will not be returned proportionately to the Southern California ratepayers.  But, the potential "wealth transfer" can be avoided if the revenues are used by the State to provide an equal per capita dividend to all Californians. LADWP and every other business or organization cannot claim they were treated any differently than anyone else.  LADWP and others can raise their rates, and will not be put out of business.  The regressive impacts still do need to be addressed, and that is why we advocate for the per capita dividend. More info at www.carbonshare.org.

  LADWP's average household electricity bill is about $50, while other large utilities' average bill is about $70, so they have some room to raise rates without actually carrying an unfair burden. By the way, I should mention that I am an LADWP ratepayer.On Los Angeles utility starts to squawk as it stares down a $700 million carbon bill posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Fixing global warming while sharing the Commons

  
  The Earth Atmospheric Trust could work.
  I like the name "Sky Trust" too.
  A group called FEASTA (www.feasta.org) in Europe is working on a system called "Cap and Share" that would send shares out to people. People cash the shares at banks or post offices, and the upstream fossil fuel companies have to buy the shares.
  My website www.carbonshare.org describes a similar idea for California.
  I think the Share could co-exist with a Dividend.  There is a check box on your tax form that asks how would you like your climate entitlement?  You can check: dividend, tax cut, or share.  You could hold the share and sell it on a private market.  Some people think the transaction costs are too high, and we should stick with a single government auction, but I think there may be benefits to allowing more citizen involvement in a carbon market.On A system to control climate change and reduce poverty posted 1 year, 8 months ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Before it gets too technical

  
  Good job to Mr. Roberts for explaining things simply and correctly.  I agree with his recommendations.
  I think a carbon tax could be a price floor in a cap and trade system, and could help with the problem of price volatility.
  Also, another way to compensate consumers would be to distribute Shares of the cap on a per capita basis, then let people sell their shares to the companies via banks. More information is at www.carbonshare.org.

  -MikeOn A short guide posted 2 years, 3 months ago 12 Responses