The Cap-and-Trade tax reminds me of a medieval Catholic indulgence – a practice in which the sinners are excused from their mischief after they do some good work. In the Dark Ages, forgiveness was granted for any sin if the offender paid a good chunk of gold to the church. Greedy church officials collected mountains of treasures and sinners were running wild. And guess what? People didn’t like it. The rotten practice of “paying for forgiveness” is considered the main cause of the Protestant Revolution. People stood up for the moral. The message was clear – just do not sin. There are things money can’t buy…
The Cap-and-Trade philosophy is a moral insult. The idea that it is OK to pollute as long as you pay cash for it is as rotten as a medieval indulgence. Common sense folks are not buying it. The money for this pollution tax is going to come out of people’s thinning wallets. These are good people. They want a clean environment for themselves and their children. Some of them believe in climate change and some of them don’t. They all believe in goodness. They want clean air, clean water and healthy food.
Common sense folks want GE to clean up the Hudson River not just to pay a chunk of gold to be forgiven for the environmental disaster they caused.
Cap-and-trade is not going to make the Earth a cleaner or safer place to live. The carbon tax is just going to make some greedy rulers richer and will make the sinners, who can afford to pollute, feel better.
People voted for hope that somebody will create regulation that can protect the environment from harm. Instead they got another tax that will only impact folk’s home budget – not the Earth.
There is nothing progressive in the Cap-and-Trade tax. It will take us backward into the Dark Ages – the times of the Witch Hunts and “Pay to Sin” failed problem solving strategies. And if the men in charge in Congress pass this monstrosity, they shouldn’t be surprised if they face a Protest Revolution in the next election. Just like those in power faced the Protestant Revolution centuries ago.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:04 am
“And if the men in charge in Congress pass this monstrosity, they shouldn’t be surprised if they face a Protest Revolution in the next election.”
I don’t necessarily believe they’ll wait until the next election!
November 14th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Flyingmonkey, As long as the protest are peaceful - I’m OK with them at any time on any subject. The elections have big consequences - so that would be the best time to choose according to your worries.
My point is - big corporations will pay for the right to pollute our environment and live happily ever after. The Cap-and-Trade friends will just make the rest of us poor people feel guilty every time we eat a burger or our pet farts.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Well it pretty much makes the industrial revolution look like a waste of time so yah it will bring us back to the dark ages.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Good point, Charles!
By the way I should have said “men and women in Congress” in the post - forgive me - as naturalized American I still practice on my “political correctness” skills
November 14th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Ellie, perhaps you would prefer my plan. I want to tackle carbon emissions head on.
We should oblige fossil fuel producers and importers to contract for the capture and sequestration of a quantity of carbon dioxide equivalent to a proportion of that produced from the fuel they supply. The proportion could start at a few percent and build up over the years. This would gradually increase fuel price thus encouraging energy saving, nuclear, renewables, electric cars and the like while providing immediate full funding for carbon capture.
Why give special treatment to carbon capture and storage? Because energy saving, nuclear, renewables, electric cars and the like are merely ways of filling the energy gap that cutting carbon dioxide emissions will create and mankind has been very effectively filling energy gaps for centuries without the aid of agreed national or global strategies, taxes or caps. Carbon capture is different. It is a way of stopping pollution. If we stop the pollution the free market will fill the energy gap. You can legislate to stop pollution (which is economically inefficient) or you can use market forces by giving credits in a cap and trade system, credits against a carbon tax or by paying directly as in my proposal.
Some time flexibility could be allowed in capturing the carbon dioxide. For example the contract might permit capture to be delayed for a year if the quantity captured were increased by 10%, and for another year for another 10% etc. This would not only help with plant problems or construction delays in the early days when there might only be a few plants, but would also allow contracts to be placed today thus providing a huge incentive to get plants up and running as soon as possible. It would also stabilise the traded contract price by extending the options for fulfilment.
One way or another we must very soon stop carbon emissions from power generation, cement manufacture etc. and substitute electricity for fuel use in many domestic, industrial and transport applications. Taxing carbon, capping emissions or contracting for carbon capture when fuel is produced could all provide the economic incentive but unless applied globally will not be sufficient.
I prefer carbon capture. It is guaranteed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel to whatever annual target is set and is the easiest option to apply globally because:
It will appeal to rapidly growing and mature countries alike. There are no national caps to restrict relative growth.
It will allow all industries in all countries to compete on a level playing field. There are no tax or carbon credit differentials and no allowances for governments to give out or auction.
Because there is only one number to agree, the global annual target, extensive international negotiations will be unnecessary. There will be no national targets to haggle over and perhaps never meet and no issue about who gets the revenue from a carbon tax, consumer or producer nation, or what the tax rate should be for each country.
Enforcement is straightforward and does not rely on the co-operation or even the consent of every country. The contracts would be traded and recorded centrally, mostly placed and paid for by the international energy companies. If countries were uncooperative and used their own fuel internally without contracting for carbon capture, a central monitoring organisation could impose an increased capture proportion on imports or exports of fuel for that country to compensate.
I would hope that within as little as twenty years we could move to a system that defined the proportion of carbon to be captured, based on fossil fuel production at the time, such that global emissions were contained at the level that the oceans absorb annually, i.e. about 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon per year. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would then stop rising.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Jem Cooper, is your plan going to increase the price of the gasoline and plastics and the rest of the products derived from oil? If yes - I am not voting for you - I’m broke even today. And I lived in Europe with their high gas prices - I enjoy being a driver here in the USA. It may be irresponsible, but I don’t like forced price hikes.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Ellie,
The simple answer is that carbon capture and sequestration could cost up to 50 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide emission avoided. This translates to $24/barrel of crude or $0.5/gallon of gasoline to capture 75% of the carbon dioxide. The ocean would absorb the other 25% at today’s rate of fossil fuel usage thus halting the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
The complicated answer is that it is only practical to capture carbon dioxide from large point sources like power stations. Forcing a 75% recovery on the global market through my proposal would drive fuel price up and electricity price down until we switched from fuel to electricity for some other industrial, domestic and transport applications.
I thought you were in favour of making polluters pay to clean up and the simple figures look rather modest compared to the price changes we have seen over the last year or so.
I have an open mind on whether global warming is a good thing or a bad thing. It depends where you live and whether you see change as a problem or an opportunity. But the bullies who call the shots in this world seem to have decided they don’t want global warming and I would like to make sure that whatever they do about it they do at minimum cost and that they leave me free to choose my own lifestyle.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Jem, very interesting! I want clean environment, but I really stop caring about it when you reach for my own money out of my own pocket - this is why the climate change went to the back burner of the issues people care about after the presidential election. Clean environment is a great talking point, but making people open their own wallets for that - it is a real challenge. So far - your plan brings no desire in me to share my wealth. Do you have a more tempting offer. Can’t you figure a way to clean up with the taxes I already pay?
November 15th, 2009 at 7:12 am
But the bullies who call the shots in this world seem to have decided they don’t want global warming and I would like to make sure that whatever they do about it they do at minimum cost and that they leave me free to choose my own lifestyle.
Jem - now that is a good spirit
November 16th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Cap and trade will take us backward. It will cripple the agriculture and manufacturing industries, among others. It will hurt every American in the form of higher energy and food prices, and provide no environmental benefit. Write your Representatives in Congress at http://tiny.cc/P3eT7.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Jem, I vote you be allowed to lead the way in carbon capture.
Now take a deep breath and hold it.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
co2 is a tiny tiny tiny problem.
the biggest greenhouse gas … by far … is water vapor.
so i suggest we create a tax on all people who drink water.