The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The flawed logic of the cap-and-trade debate > Comments

The flawed logic of the cap-and-trade debate : Comments

By Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, published 5/6/2009

Current efforts to tax or cap carbon emissions are doomed to failure: the answer lies in making clean energy cheap.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
It is now clear that politicians do not have the cojones to make carbon penalties tough enough. The free permits and generous offsets of cap-and-trade schemes will become exemptions and deductions under a carbon tax so that is not an alternative. However the inescapable fact remains that 'clean energy' with storage and transmission is more expensive than coal. Therefore to confer a relative advantage to clean tech the cost of coal must be increased by government decree. Other approaches like prescriptive carbon standards or green quotas may create unintended consequences. For example a swing from coal fired to gas fired electricity reduces CO2 but may raise gas prices for long standing gas users.

Quite apart from climate change the other problem is that fossil fuels will effectively run out by mid century. Crude oil has already peaked. Those countries with spare gas and coal will be pressured to help out the rest of the world. Carbon penalties now may smooth the inevitable transition path to clean energy. The multi-billion dollar dividend creates a funding mechanism for clean tech capital.

Therefore I think the answer is to persevere with cap and trade schemes but administer them in a fairly harsh way. Disallow most offsets and give subsidies instead of free permits. The squabbling will be deafening with those with the least to lose probably making the most noise. If governments can tough it out for the next decade or two there may be clearer waters ahead. We are heading towards a cliff anyway both in terms of climate surprises and fossil energy shortages.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 5 June 2009 9:01:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
polititions are polutions in and of themselves..[see the joke folks]

see we put punitive taxes on booze/smokes..[doubled even trippled their price..[BUT HOW MANY STOPPED DINKING?>SMOKING,...not many..[in fact some just drink/smoke..all the more]

see that a doubling..of power/water wont change nuthin..[if your hot your going to turn on the air-con..regardless of the cost..[you may pay later..[same re cold,..the addicts to heat..will simply take longer showers..before plugging in the heater]

cap and trade is even worse..[its like giving the booze/smoke tax back to the booze/smoke merchants..[mate its smoke and mirrors,this increase of price..aint going to stop nothing

worse it all goes..eventually..to the carbon traders..[who will increase the price/cost of carbon/units..[because its paid by the mugs..as a TAX..compulsory tax put on everything

[just like alcohol/booze tax..[or the tax on smokes]THAT HAVNT AFFECTED boozing or smoking...see this whole tax-sceme is flawed...from its conception..[by the bilderburgers in the 40's]

havnt we learned from the euro/experience..how stupid to give the credit to big buisnes..[the same poluters...that emit all the other polutions..[that our tax will allow them only to find more clever ways of getting our tax

here is how it works...they produce electicity..[from the station...your switcching/off..your light..donst make less electricity..[those still using the light get higher rate of it flowing through their mains

[instead of getting 240 volts of it they get 241 volts of it..[thats why your electrical things burn out..[they push the max down the tubes they can get away with..

look its the same with water..[your tap goes off more presure comes though everyone elses pipes]...its like push-poling

[think about it..[if your paying for two forty volts..but getting 250,..your using an extra 10..[they doubled their product/sales/price you have to pay for..[havnt you studied your bill?

...linesmen will explain it better..[if you think..their planning to give you 240V your delusional..[they are pumping up to 280 most of the time..[its more noticable with water..[see the burst mains..[its the same deal

[your two-minute/shower uses more water at a higher presure..than if the presure was lower..[you think they dont know...HAVNT you noticed your taps dripping more?...why..they been pumping it in at a higher/presure...[to keep their sales/income up...]
Posted by one under god, Friday, 5 June 2009 9:59:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All attempts to 'cure' climate change are doomed to failure. Only the climate can change itself. People never caused climate change in the first place, and they cannot 'un-cause' it.
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 6 June 2009 11:52:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note that the right wing think tanks have enthusiastically embraced Nordhaus and Shellenberger's article - the IPA, Lavoisier, Heartland etc have published it on their websites.

As like others who jump camp, these gentlemen are offering more of the same solutions - divide and delay. Clean technologies remain futuristic and to date there is no such thing as clean coal nor will there ever be.

One must aske a few questions:

1. Why are we debating climate change

A: The evidence is overwhelming that atmospheric CO2 has increased more rapidly than any other time in the past 650,000 years.

2. What has caused the increase in CO2

A: Human activity

3. How can you prove that

A: From carbon isotopes of anthropogenic, fossil fuel emissions

4. Who are predominantly responsible for excessive CO2 emissions

A: Large pollutant industries

5. The ETS will be implemented to protect polluters and will lead to elevated emissions. In addition, the lag time between now and the advent of "clean technologies" apart from renewables, is too vast.

6. Why have pollutant industries' emissions not been regulated and capped in developed countries through the EPA legislation and departments of environment?

A: The object and principles of the Act were legislated over 40 years ago to prevent, control or abate environmental harm and to make good resulting from environmental damage caused by pollutant industries - "Polluter Pays Principle."

contd......
Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 6 June 2009 3:20:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
7. The EPA legislation has been used, abused, manipulated and corrupted by giant pollutant corporations, senior bureaucrats and sycophantic politicians.

8. The EPA is legislated and the Act should be enforced immediately - here and in the US at least. Those who breach the international guidelines for emissions (already in place) commit an offence and should be prosecuted(as the Act states.) Scrubbers and pollution control technologies (already available) must be made mandatory and all pollutant corporations must install continuous monitoring for their emissions and analytical reports submitted on a quarterly basis to departments of environment and the NPI etc. Daily analytical records must be kept.

Only with enforcement of the Act will we see a massive mitigation in CO2 emissions and other seriously destructive pollutants.

9. Many senior bureaucrats from the Department of Environment in my state, have jumped camp to work for Alcoa and othe big polluters. There is no lag time between appointments - a clear conflict of interest.

10. The Departments of Environment have always acted as a defence for the big polluters. The Environmental Protection Act is a farce. Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been used to prop up these departments which, together with their "clients," are criminally responsible for the already dire state of our environment:

http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour
Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 6 June 2009 3:33:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think politicians are sometimes smarter than we give them credit for. Having been presented with a problem that is currently overstated in relation to its provable impact, politicians have come up with carbon policies that are equally overstated compared to their provable impact. Very smart!

They are also leaving “wriggle room” for later scaling up or down and the opportunity for almost endless delays whilst at the same time maintaining as much ideological support as possible. Brilliant!

The variables they have already factored in include the potential for the supporting science to either “firm up” or “decay”, the setting in of “green fatigue” as the public turns its focus to more pressing matters, and the increasing recognition by the public that they are not qualified to make scientific decisions and should not have been presented with the problem in the first place, let the scientists work it out.

Politicians always have an eye on increases in government income and will keep their options open for as long as possible for the “sellable” opportunity to pour carbon money in any form into their general revenue. Sensational!

More amazing than all of this is the fact that some members of the public still cannot see the politics, and insist that they are indeed “qualified” to deliberate on the science. They tenaciously hang onto the belief that they can influence the public mood through the circulation of pseudo-science whilst presenting their true credentials as well meaning ideological amateurs.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 7 June 2009 9:53:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vested interests are blowing too much "fairy dust" into the eyes of the public in order to misdirect or confuse debate. Research arguments are based on thinking and perspectives set so narrow so as to lead to a pre-conceived outcome.
Simply, the reality:
1: Using our resources more efficiently and wisely, eliminating waste will protect future generations. It is imperative that when implementing more efficient systems for conservation, reducing pollution, protecting the environment and the health of the public now is more cost effective than waiting some 20-50 years time. Remember! Fuel that is burnt wastefully; resources wasted can, not only pollute the environment or damaging public health, will effect your bottom line and profit.

2: E.g. I was amazed at the reply to a submission I was asked to write in reply to the Victorian Government's Central Regions water strategy a couple of years ago. The submission questioned the government’s lack of commitment towards water conservation and also to the community consultation process. The Planning Strategy was simply a Spin Doctoring or Public Relations exercise. I found the quality and accuracy of the report was less than what I would have expected from a first year high school student. If I had accepted the figures used in the report then I would have to assume that the Geelong community were the most efficient water users in the western worlds or; the dirtiest among the western world communities. E.g., the document tried to tell us that Geelong used 18.5 litres annually for both domestic and industry. Wow!! Let others learn from the wonderfully competent Geelong community:)
My reply to the submissions did not accept narrow parameters but tried to look at the whole picture of water conservation. Perhaps that was my mistake:(. Anyway, I received a very nice reply thanking me for my contribution and then the reply went on to say that my information was too technical and the technology was not available.

Well, submission only the present knowledge and available technology and was available elsewhere in the world. In some instances, it had been available for many years.
Posted by professor-au, Sunday, 7 June 2009 8:32:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't this just one more call to delay serious action? To insist we should be waiting upon some kind of superior technology to emerge before seriously addressing emissions? I absolutely agree that funding R&D is essential but the crux of this argument is that we shouldn't act if it involves any kind of difficult decision making or cause any hardship to any sector of the existing economy such as coal mining and coal power generation - the sectors that realistically must be massively cut back. The lack of political will to make hard decisions on emissions is very real but I don't see calls to delay imposing appropriate carbon prices as an appropiate response. Besides, it's early days, with a lingering reluctance to acknowledge a problem (thousands of published papers are wrong and a few mavericks who can't even get published in peer review are right). I'm all for more R&D, particularly around grid upgrade and expansion and energy storage, but most of the technologies needed are well developed (24 hr a day CSP, PV at ever lowering prices, Wind, Geothermal and new generation nukes like IFR).

Nair correctly points out the reluctance by politics and entreched interests to address growing emissions but fails to point to any alternatives to efforts barely begun to deal with climate change - beyond calls for more R&D, which people like myself have never stopped arguing for. It's a 'too hard, don't bother' kind of argument.Backing away from imposing high carbon prices in the hope that some technological silver bullets will emerge - whilst continuing a Business As Usual reliance on fossil fuels - is not a visionary approach at all. It's a "too hard, don't bother' argument used to justify more delay.

Nair's arguments might have been appropriate a decade or more ago, not now. If adopted they would add another decade of inaction on the basis that the consequences of doing very little won't really be worse than doing what we can because some magic bullet will emerge to undo the decades of inaction.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Monday, 8 June 2009 9:46:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, I had two OLO articles open at once and misnamed the author of the one I submitted a comment to - should be Nordhaus and Shellenberger, not Nair.
Apologies to Chandran Nair.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Monday, 8 June 2009 9:55:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with you Ken Fabos that there is an urgent need for R&D. However, R&D can take years or even decades to implement.

I reiterate the need to reinforce the Environmental Protection Act while R&D is underway. The Act can be enforced immediately. It is already legislated but has been manipulated to allow polluters to pollute with relish. This nation is being duped as it has been for some forty years.

All the recommendations put forth by well meaning citizens to mitigate carbon dioxide are futuristic and are therefore unintentionally, delaying urgent action.

If we fail to take immediate action to reduce CO2 and other pollutants, we can kiss the future (as we know it) "good-bye."

With or without global warming, our rivers, our soil, our health and our right to clean air continue to be polluted and have already been seriously compromised.
Posted by Protagoras, Monday, 8 June 2009 2:03:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Australian Government's Taxation Office notice on this web page says " Don't take the Bait, Dodgy schemes can come back to bite you".... I couldn't have said it better myself!
Posted by Dallas, Monday, 8 June 2009 3:53:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Carbon credit trading is a fraud
All these schemes do is give permission to pollute.
The solution is encourage positive outcomes More carrot less stick.
Posted by beefyboy, Tuesday, 9 June 2009 8:24:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article states an important point: Innovation comes from Public funds...exploitation is what the private sector does. We *know* that corporations in markets require governance: GFC is most recent example. The tulip frenzy in Europe is also an excellent study as to ungoverned market dynamics. Even though R&D is the most productive investment that can be made (historically), almost all of it is public innovation being exploited by corporations. I've no problem with exploitation, after all profitable enterprises are the nations wealth, however when they curtail progress then they need to be governed so that society can move on. Exploitation of technology=Good, Exploitation of society via politics=Bad.
I'm with beefyboy: Positive effort, not negative.
Lets get the solar-thermal plants installed, make the next-gen batteries, lay the high voltage DC. *Current* state of the art can compete with coal now...provided you level the playing field. Of course a level playing field is not how business is done these days. Once an industry gets large enough then the lobby power and "institute power" will keep competition to a minimal.
The denialists are playing the same game as tobacco companies and creationists: "Doubt is our product". The fact hat their arguments are total BS is irrelevant to them. Do we expect ads to be totally accurate? The Cap and trade nonsense as well as the "alternate science" are just marketing tools to minimise the impact of a potential crisis.
Sadly we have probably passed some important tipping points so we will definitely have to adapt to some radical changes. This is no excuse for business as usual though.
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 9 June 2009 11:00:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozandy

You took the words right out of my mouth.

All we are seeing from the so-called 'skeptics' are stalling tactics. Their arguments are based purely on self-interest and have as much 'science' as the tobacco companies provided in their BS claims about carcinogenic agents.

We so need action with the existing technology, what knowledge we lack WILL be found along the way, but this cap-and-trade is simply putting money into different buckets and achieving nothing.

Here's a link to what is being done right now with alternative renewable technology on a large scale:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=10-largest-renewable-energy-projects&sc=CAT_SP_20090608

Meanwhile, we have ignorant politicians like Fielding further muddying the waters and setting back change - for how much longer can we continue arguing while still polluting and using all nonrenewable fuels?

Madness.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 9 June 2009 11:58:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozandy: "Even though R&D is the most productive investment that can be made (historically), almost all of it is public innovation being exploited by corporations. I've no problem with exploitation, after all profitable enterprises are the nations wealth, however when they curtail progress then they need to be governed so that society can move on."

Can anyone out there translate this for me? I'm really keen to understand what Ozandy is trying so very hard to communicate.

"Creationists: Doubt is our product."
lol. Now there's something I've never heard before.

"Sadly we have probably passed some important tipping points...."
Ech, stop there. My stomach just passed an important tipping point.

Fractelle, if you don't want your car, can I have it?
Posted by fungochumley, Tuesday, 9 June 2009 8:40:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PS. Thanks dallas. Very funny.
Posted by fungochumley, Tuesday, 9 June 2009 8:41:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fungo

In a word:

NO

If I can obtain a small fuel efficient economical car, then you can too.

Now, some home-work for you:

Please justify business-as-usual.

By that I mean continuing to use all non-renewable energy sources, pollute the air, our streams and oceans and to continue breeding humans beyond which our planet can sustain.

Thank you.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 11:21:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy