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