Comments BChameides has made

Environmental Defense Integrity

Hi greenfire. I want to respond to your post asking about conflicts of interest at Environmental Defense.

Sorry, there's neither smoke nor fire here. Environmental Defense is strictly nonpartisan. We take pride in the fact that we partner with unlikely allies to reach important environmental goals such as the elimination of Styrofoam packaging in fast food restaurants (McDonalds), and the development of a new generation of clean and more efficient delivery trucks (FedEx).

We are also proud of the role we played in launching the Environmental Resources Trust (ERT), a non-profit organization dedicated to developing market mechanisms to address environmental problems. Note that once ERT reached maturity, Environmental Defense severed all official ties with it. No member of our Board or staff currently works for or serves on the Board of ERT. (See the list of current ERT board members.)

Environmental Defense adheres to strict ethical guidelines. We meet all 20 standards for charity accountability set by the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance (see report). The fifth standard specifically bars any transaction in which a board or staff member has a conflicting material interest.

Environmental Defense also does not accept money or donations from any business or corporation that we partner with, that stands to gain materially from the work we do, or that's directly responsible for pollution. For details, see Environmental Defense's Corporate Guidelines.

Our only agenda is the environment. Environmental Defense's advocacy of cap-and-trade is based on our long-standing commitment to fighting global warming, and our belief that the best way to do so is with appropriate markets incentives.

www.climate411.org

response to Jason's points

Jason brings up some interesting points. Let me see if I can address them.

1. Leakage refers to the tendency for emissions to "leak" from a capped system to an uncapped system. This happens when manufacturers move production to an uncapped country so they can meet demand without incurring the increased costs of the cap. It is important to note that Nordhaus only brings this up as a problem for Kyoto, where developed economies are capped and developing are not. Within the US, cap leakage would not, by definition, be a problem.

In the absence of an international regime, there would be a tendency for leakage outside the US. But the same would occur for a carbon tax! If some countries had a carbon tax and others did not, there would be a tendency for production and emissions to move to the countries without the tax. That's why we need an international regime. And the best way to make that happen is for the US to have its own meaningful climate policy. Hopefully, we can all, at least, agree on that.

2. Difficulties re monitoring, enforcement: Yes there are complications associated with implementing cap-and-trade, but they are manageable. I'm not trying to say cap and trade won't be complicated, but a tax is no walk in the park either.
3. Grandfathering: There are a variety of ways to implement a cap-and-trade, and not all are based on allocating allowances based on historical emissions. Systems can even be developed that reward early actors, and penalize companies that try to game the system by jacking up their emissions at the last minute.
4. Costs: Both a tax and a cap-and-trade can raise costs. It's a question of which is the most cost-effective path - history suggests it is cap-and-trade. And finally don't forget we are talking about avoiding dangerous climate change. ONLY a cap can guarantee that we will meet emissions targets.

www.climate411.org