next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
--Apple-Mail-4--160198150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi folks, I'm far from being an expert on this, however, I think it is important =20= to keep two things in mind: 1) Unchecked, the continuing emission of greenhouse gases will have =20 enormous, potentially catastrophic, consequences for our civilization. =20= The results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change make this =20= clear. [ http://www.ipcc.ch/ ] 2) Hence, we need to take some action. There are, as I understand it, =20= two main approaches: a) Carbon Taxes: economists tend to like this approach since it sets a =20= definite (and increasing) price on carbon that everyone (consumers, & =20= business) pay across the boards. It's a clear economic mechanism that =20= puts a price on pollution. As governments ratchet up the tax, the =20 incentives become ever stronger to cut down on carbon emissions. Both =20= the Liberals (with their Green Shift) and the Greens (with a nearly =20 identical plan) propose this. The difficulties are two-fold: i) it's tough to sell this politically =20= (consumers have visceral reactions to the idea of "taxes" even if they =20= get them back with a decrease of income tax); and ii) there is no =20 definite indication as to by how much carbon emissions will actually =20 fall, and how quickly this will happen, since carbon taxes are just =20 economic incentives. b) Cape and Trade: environmentalists tend to like this approach since =20= it sets a definite (and decreasing) cap on carbon emissions. It =20 doesn't impact consumers directly but instead targets industrial and =20 other large carbon emitters. A cap is set and any excess emission =20 beyond the cap must be compensated for by purchasing carbon credits =20 from enterprises that have made savings in their carbon emissions (or =20= are doing better than the norm). This punishes the slackers (they have =20= to spend extra funds to purchase credits) and rewards pro-active and =20 efficient companies and enterprises who have done well (they make =20 extra profits by selling carbon credits). It is easier to sell this to consumers (and hence the electorate) =20 since they don't have to pay anything up front. Also, as the cap =20 ratchets down from year to year, the incentive to become more =20 efficient increases. The NDP has proposed a Cap and Trade system. The difficulty (from the standpoint of economists) is that prices =20 under cap and trade are not set. Enterprises auction or trade carbon =20 credits via a market mechanism and they can sell/trade for as much or =20= as little as the market will bear. It can be argued that there will be =20= trickle-down costs to consumers as the slacker corporations simply =20 pass along their higher costs (for purchasing carbon credits) to their =20= customers. However, the same reasoning indicates that costs for =20 commodities from the pro-active businesses should be less since their =20= costs are correspondingly less from having an extra income stream from =20= selling carbon credits. Some also criticize cap and trade saying that =20= it could be complicated to set up. The Kyoto Protocol (which appears to have Canada abandoned) had a cap =20= and trade mechanism built into it. The European Union Emission Trading =20= Scheme (EU ETS) is now largest multi-national, greenhouse gas =20 emissions trading scheme in the world and was created in conjunction =20 with the Kyoto Protocol. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme ] Also, in the United States, 26 states, tired of the US Federal =20 Government's inaction, have themselves formed three networks to work =20 collaboratively to reduce the impacts of climate change. a) The Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI: =20 Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, =20= New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont) [ = http://www.rggi.org/home=20 ] have already started a cap and trade system (the first auctions =20 were last week in which all available allowances were auctioned of at =20= a cost of $3.07/ton). They are being closely watched by; b) Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA: Iowa, Illinois, =20 Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and (in Canada) Manitoba); [ = http://www.midwesternaccord.org=20 ] and c) The Western Climate Initiative (WCI: Arizona, California, Montana, =20= New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and (in Canada) British =20 Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Ontario. [ = http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org=20 ] Who are both interested in in setting up regional cap and trade =20 networks. Hence, in a Canadian, North American, and global context, =20 the cap and trade approach has a significant head start and is rapidly =20= being adopted in many jurisdictions. Cheers, Chris On 2-Oct-08, at 9:21 AM, Paul S. Boyer wrote: > Another article on Norway's carbon tax points out that since the =20 > inception of this tax, Norway's carbon footprint has increased 14%. =20= > Yet another article says that it has decreased 14%, but only 2% of =20 > the decrease is attributable to the tax = [http://ideas.repec.org/p/ssb/dispap/337.html=20 > ]. Meanwhile, other countries without a carbon tax have had their =20 > footprint decrease (notably the USA). The Wall Street Journal =20 > reported on Tuesday that the carbon footprint in Norway has =20 > increased 15% since the tax was instituted = [http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/09/30/emissions-impossible= -norway-taxes-carbon-emissions-rise/=20 > ]. According to the article, Norwegians are buying more, bigger, =20 > and more expensive cars, and are driving more. They like the =20 > lifestyle. (I think joie de vivre in Norwegian is glede for liv.) =20= > They are doing fine, with much petroleum production, and one of the =20= > highest wealth-levels in the world. Their new tax probably has =20 > essentially no practical or measurable effect on world climatic =20 > conditions whatsoever, and the policy is not transferable to other =20 > countries whose situations may be quite different. However, =20 > although the tax is reportedly highly unpopular among some (see =20 > "Carbon tax tops Norway grievances" at = http://www.scandoil.com/moxie-bm2/financial/politics_/carbon-tax-tops-list= -of-norway.shtml)=20 > , it must make others satisfied, perhaps emotionally =97 and anyway, =20= > they are enjoying life in spite of it. Good for them! > > Politicians generally like new taxes. Whether taxes ever do any =20 > good is a matter of debate, but any rationale will suffice. When =20 > taxes are openly proposed, the poison is usually sugar-coated in =20 > some way: the benefit will help some worthy goal, or it w