Who really owns the sky (and I don't mean "military airspace")? Who is entitled to clean air or a stable climate? That is the question that I keep asking myself when carbon-limiting proposals are being discussed.
The answer is that it's living beings who need the air, and non-living entities that don't. What disturbs me is that in most Cap & Trade proposals, millions of "credits" are given away to power companies and other industrials, more or less because "we've always polluted for free, and you'll kill our business if you make us pay to pollute". They NEED to pollute to keep on going profitably. They DON'T need the air to be clean, or the climate to be stable. I understand that they are looking out for their shareholders' financial interests, but what about their living interests?
If companies can't pollute for free, they need to raise their prices for consumers. And, the theory goes, this is terribly unfair to the poor, since energy and basic materials take up a greater portion of their income. So, charging companies for their pollution is bad for the poor (since it will take up a lot of their money), and also bad for the rich (since they own most of the companies). Therefore, the status quo reigns and pollution stays free, and we all pay for it when the environment is degraded.
There is a better solution that doesn't get nearly enough attention, and it's called "Cap & Dividend". With Cap & Dividend, there are NO giveaways of GHG credits. ALL credits are sold off by the government (causing prices to rise), BUT something VERY different happens with the auction revenue: it's returned to the American people.
That's right: nation-wide pollution reduction would lead to monthly dividends for everybody! Everyone gets the same payment, however, the more you consume (SUV drivers, frequent fliers) the more you ultimately pay into the fund, and the less you consume (everyone else), the less you pay. How the system affects your personal finances is entirely dependent on your own actions. Shouldn't that put a smile on the face of Tea Partiers everywhere?
Most if not all Cap & Dividend proposals also envision capping pollution as an INPUT, rather than an output, which is to say that measurements will be made at the mines and pipelines, rather than the smokestacks and tailpipes. This will not only level the playing field for all consumers, but also eliminate the need for the "army of accountants" to track emissions under most Cap & Trade proposals.
Furthermore, Cap & Dividend preserves the power of market forces, and does not force the government to "pick winners" for clean energy investment (carbon capture, nuclear, ethanol etc). It also eliminates the potential for fraudulent credit-trading schemes.
Here are some resources with more information about Cap & Dividend:
An easy-to-read primer from Peter Barnes, citing liberal and conservative support for Cap & Dividend
British Columbia already has a comparable "carbon tax & tax cut" program that proved to be a decisively popular election issue in 2009
Sen. Cantwell's CLEAR page, including a summary, a list of goals, a FAQ, an interview, and an editorial
Glad to see you got the blog up! I love dividends. A cap & dividend setup really should make everyone happy. It provides a control for pollution and incentives to consumers to reduce their use of fossil fuels, which the Left should love. It keeps the money out of the government's hands, which the Right should love. And as you say the money gets paid out equally to all U.S. citizens, which everyone should love.
ReplyDelete