Cap & Trade not a solution for GW

[Puppycow]

The Story of Cap & Trade


I'm not quite sure what the politically realistic alternative is, though.
I know that many of the attempts made so far have been completely ineffective and even had perverse consequences, as is mentioned in the video. I don't trust "offsets." She's definitely right about that. Anyone wanna pay me to not drive my car?

"This is the gravest crisis humanity has ever faced"
If the above is true, we're screwed. I don't doubt the science of global warming, but I'm very skeptical that as a species we can prevent it given efforts so far.
If 350 ppm is really the safe limit and we are already at 387, it seems like a forgone conclusion.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm with you.

IF I accept AGW, cap and trade is not the solution.
Share prices in carbon have already fallen dramatically, from some $7.40 a tonne to something like $0.15 cents per tonne.
The trillion dollar bubble has already burst.

 

[macdoc]

I don't favour cap and trade as an approach at all...too open to corruption.
A straight carbon tax like Norway and Sweden and use the proceeds to kickstart carbon neutral.

Polluter pays....period.

Get used to it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I don't favour cap and trade as an approach at all...too open to corruption.
A straight carbon tax like Norway and Sweden and use the proceeds to kickstart carbon neutral.

Polluter pays....period.

Where does the money/tax go that is collected?
Is it used towards renewable energy programs?
What happens, generally I mean?

 

[OMGturt1es]

Cap and trade is better than nothing, and could be successful so long as the cap is firm, and aggressively lowered. But I'd rather see massive money go straight to the production of superior transmission infrastructure and as many solar and wind plants as are feasible. I'd like to see purely electric cars, as well.

 

[athon]

Where does the money/tax go that is collected?
Is it used towards renewable energy programs?
What happens, generally I mean?

While I can't answer for countries that do employ this approach, this suggestion would be my choice.

There are a lot of programs that do have potential on the R&D circuit that would help alternative energy strategies compete. I was recently made aware of how spinifex grass in the outback could be a damn useful biofuel. It's useless as anything else. The drought has left massive patches of land without feed, but full of this stuff, meaning farmers could make at least some money from it. It could also be a useful industry for some indigenous communities. I'd love to see what such an industry might do for remote communities.

Without seeking viable alternatives and promoting the progress of technology that leaves fossil fuels underground, anything else is simply a tokenistic effort.

Athon

 

[McHrozni]

I certainly hope that the Kyoto protocol was the stupidest climate protocol ever. It's stundieferus: force the developed nations to reduce their emissions, allow the undeveloped nations to increase them, and allow trading of carbon credits.
Yay. Anyone can see that it has only two possible effects: the undeveloped nations will reduce the price of carbon credits to the point where it will be more profitable for developed polluters to buy them instead of reducing emissions. Polluting continues as before.
The other option is that polluting industries will move to undeveloped nations. Polluting continues as before.

Not surprisingly, the reality was a combination of these two. Perhaps some minimal reductions were done, but I doubt many of them wouldn't happen without this ridiculous treaty.

McHrozni

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Cap and trade is better than nothing, and could be successful so long as the cap is firm, and aggressively lowered. But I'd rather see massive money go straight to the production of superior transmission infrastructure and as many solar and wind plants as are feasible. I'd like to see purely electric cars, as well.

While I can't answer for countries that do employ this approach, this suggestion would be my choice.

There are a lot of programs that do have potential on the R&D circuit that would help alternative energy strategies compete. I was recently made aware of how spinifex grass in the outback could be a damn useful biofuel. It's useless as anything else. The drought has left massive patches of land without feed, but full of this stuff, meaning farmers could make at least some money from it. It could also be a useful industry for some indigenous communities. I'd love to see what such an industry might do for remote communities.

Without seeking viable alternatives and promoting the progress of technology that leaves fossil fuels underground, anything else is simply a tokenistic effort.

Athon

It's this sort of stuff that should be pursued (imho) and any taxes collected going exclusively towards the r&d.

 

[Dancing David]

Cap and trade was apolitical solution offered to have a free market influence upon carbon production. What I find funny is that it was proposed by many people who now oppose it.

I believe it is meant to be a means to bring down carbon emission while non-fossil feul sources are developed. (Or carbon capture is worked upon.)

 

[Puppycow]

A straight carbon tax like Norway and Sweden and use the proceeds to kickstart carbon neutral.

Sounds like a better and simpler idea, but it includes the dreaded T-word.

Most people won't be willing to do anything until there is some direct effect on themselves personally. By which time it will probably be too late.

 

[Pipirr]

The Economist expresses a preference for pricing carbon:

A carbon price sends business a price signal to invest in clean stuff not dirty stuff. It doesn’t involve micromanaging business, which regulations do. It doesn’t impose a burden on taxpayers, or require governments to pick winners, which subsidies do. It is, according to an American study, twice as efficient as any other policy.

Economists prefer carbon prices, especially those set by taxes rather than cap-and-trade systems, which are more vulnerable to capture by the polluters they are supposed to penalise. Sadly, though, the views of economists carry little weight. Governments and businesses both tend to like subsidies.

 

[Puppycow]

The Economist expresses a preference for pricing carbon:

That's a good article.

 

[Bikewer]

Without having bothered to research the idea deeply, I admit that "cap and trade" always struck me as a sort of shell game.

 

[varwoche]

"This is the gravest crisis humanity has ever faced"
If the above is true, we're screwed. I don't doubt the science of global warming, but I'm very skeptical that as a species we can prevent it given efforts so far.
If 350 ppm is really the safe limit and we are already at 387, it seems like a forgone conclusion.

I have a hard time imagining that emissions will be significantly (much less sufficiently) reduced in the short term. I pin my hopes on albedo manipulation.

 

[OMGturt1es]

I have a hard time imagining that emissions will be significantly (much less sufficiently) reduced in the short term. I pin my hopes on albedo manipulation.

I'm sure they won't. But they could be. We have the technology, the ability and the wealth. I don't really have much hope. At least it will be interesting.

 

[Puppycow]

More evidence that Cap & Trade is flawed:
Russia’s Carbon Credit Bank Seen as Barrier to Warming Curb

Does Russia hold hostage the future of a carbon cap-and-trade system that many experts see as a critical tool for curbing global warming gases? Improbable as it may seem, the answer appears to be yes.

That is because Russia, as a result of the collapse of much of its heavy industry in the 1990s, owns one of the world’s largest stocks of credits to offset carbon emissions.

The unearned windfall, a legacy of the Kyoto Protocol that was the world’s first attempt to come to grips with the threat of climate change, is worth several billion dollars. If abruptly sold abroad, those credits could send the price of carbon on the world’s fragile emissions markets plunging toward zero.

Without a predictable and reasonably high price for carbon emissions, most economists say, there is little prospect of setting in motion the many investments needed to shift from a carbon-intensive industrial economy to a more sustainable energy base in developed and developing countries alike.

The specter of Russia dumping its credits is just the latest challenge facing emissions trading, the expected financial backbone to any global agreement that ultimately emerges from the talks that are taking place in Copenhagen over the next two weeks. The hoard of Russian credits is a “gorilla sitting in the background” that “nobody dares to touch,” said Peter Zapfel, a senior official who helps to oversee the European Union’s four-year-old emissions trading system.

The most famous and iconic effort to curb global warming is now an impediment to curbing global warming!

That and biofuels, another counterproductive carbon-increasing boondoggle.

 

[Puppycow]

So add this to the list of "solutions" for global warming that have been either ineffective or counterproductive.

What else is on that list?
Off the top of my head is:
1) Ethanol
2) A tax credit for mixing biofuels with fossil fuels that encouraged paper mills to use more fossil fuels.
3) Rainforests cleared to make room for palm oil plantations to fuel artificially created extra demand for biofuels.
4) Kyoto protocol

 

[DogB]

Without having bothered to research the idea deeply, I admit that "cap and trade" always struck me as a sort of shell game.

The straight tax idea is a worse one. The government taxes the polluters who pass the extra cost on to their customers who are compensated for increased prices by the government with the tax money, thereby returning money that they've just indirectly paid.

Idiocy.

 

[macdoc]

So puppy tht means you just want a laissez faire unregulated structure??

You do know there are success stories as well...

SO2
CFC
Clean water act
Thousands of safety regulations of all sort

That there are thieves and scoundrels who undermine or ignore regulations as they do in the world fishing industry for instance does not mean we should ignore risks and hide our heads in teh sand as denier are wont to do.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

The straight tax idea is a worse one. The government taxes the polluters who pass the extra cost on to their customers who are compensated for increased prices by the government with the tax money, thereby returning money that they've just indirectly paid.

Idiocy.

Agreed. Once you add in the cost of administration.. you've got a net loss.