Cap and Trade

Hey Rob, I noticed you said you are against cap and trade on the message board? Why? Isn't it less restrictive then a command and control regulation that puts a firm cap on all emissions? Just curious why you are against it.

Jason

-----

Jay,

Thanks for asking. First of all, I am definitely NOT a climate change skeptic, nor do I think that global warming is "no big deal". I found it hilarious when I was at a Congressional hearing on renewable energy and one of the Republicans (I will edit this after I look up his name) essentially said, "global warming is a bunch of hooey. CO2 has been in far greater concentrations in our atmosphere in the past, and it was an exciting time for our planet". Yeah, and we had pterodactyls and pigeon-sized insects in the sky. Sounds lovely, let's do that again.

My objection to "cap and trade" is that I believe carbon dioxide/GHGs are far too big of an issue for cap and trade to be effective. It would be a trillion dollar industry with unlimited opportunities for fraud, and would require an army of accountants to verify reductions, manpower that would be better spent, oh, i don't know.... actually working to develop cleaner technology or improve efficiency?! Look at what Britain is doing all on its own.

CO2 and methane are naturally occurring compounds. Cap and trade worked very well in stopping acid rain, which was caused by nitrogen and sulfur compounds that occur in nature only in small quantities. It would be nice to start reducing emissions from the electric utilities sector, but is that really fair? I mean, you release methane every time you go to the bathroom, and methane is 22x more potent of a GHG than CO2, but no one is proposing to regulate your bathroom... and of course agriculture (ie cow, pig, chicken crap) is the same scenario. Furthermore, what if planetary warming causes the Arctic permafrost to melt, releasing millions more tons of methane from the frozen soil? That methane is all there, it's just (for now) captured under the ice. How will that work into all the budgets? Or how about a volcanic eruption?

Basically I just don't think it's practical-- the scale is far too large. Furthermore, we really DON'T know at what level GHG emissions are "OK", or what temperature rise. Is a 1 degree temperature rise "safe"? it will still bleach coral reefs. Is 2 degrees safe? It will still probably result in millions of additional cases of malaria each year. 3 degrees? 4? Most estimates say average temps will rise by 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century in a "do nothing" scenario. That will melt the ice caps, flood Manhattan, and God knows what else. Of course, Canada and Russia will benefit, since there will be new shipping routes! So who is going to set these limits and enforce them?

Anyway, what I'm in favor of is a simple carbon tax. Make renewables competitive by putting a clear and obvious tax on fossil fuels. If that's not politically feasible, there are other ways to provide incentives. The Bush administration actually had a good idea when they formed the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. It includes the US, Canada, Japan, China, South Korea, Australia, and India--- ie about 65% of the world's emissions, and virtually all of the emissions that are not subject to/participating in the Kyoto Protocol. The APP does not have mandatory limits, but encourages international technology sharing and best practices. One might argue that under Bush it was mostly fluff, but that's the approach I think we should be taking.

Since we really DON'T know where to set this "cap", and we will have a VERY difficult time enforcing it (especially on a global basis), I just don't think cap and trade is a practical strategy.