Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Cap-and-Trade System Rewards Special Interests
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — "Cap-and-trade" sounds fabulous: those who emit carbon dioxide will have to obtain permits for their emissions. If they are able to reduce emissions cheaply, they will cut their emissions, enabling them to sell the permits they don't need to those who can't cut emissions as cheaply.
Thus, the efficient are rewarded, the environment saved. But once you read the fine print, cap-and-trade doesn't look as good.
First, for the system to be effective the permits must be worth something. Permits are valuable only if there are not enough of them available for current emissions levels.
President Obama originally proposed selling the permits through an auction, but special interests have already watered the bill down to provide that 80 percent of the permits will be given to existing emitters. The same thing happened under the European Union's plan, which failed miserably. As a result of the giveaway, the desired reductions won't appear.
Let's ignore that problem and imagine Congress decides on a system that will cut emissions.
As American legislation, the cap-and-trade system applies only to American emissions, but only 22.2 percent of the world's carbon-dioxide emissions come from U.S. sources.
Since it is world emissions that potentially affect the climate, reducing just one country's emissions does little good unless worldwide emissions are cut. As major sources like China (18.4 percent), European Union (15 percent), Russia (5.6 percent), India (4.9 percent) and Japan (4.6 percent) have not yet agreed to reduce their emissions, and many developing countries' emissions are increasing as their economies grow, reducing U.S. emissions merely puts American firms at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors.
Worse, by reducing U.S. emissions before we reach an agreement with other source countries, the United States would give up its most valuable negotiating chip without getting anything in return.
Since many major emitters including China and India have shown no willingness to reduce emissions on their own, a unilateral move by the United States makes it less likely that we will be able to negotiate an effective worldwide agreement.
Even if we could get other countries to sign on, a cap-and-trade system that works will be an economic disaster because it will raise the price of everything.
Unlike many other pollutants, carbon-dioxide emissions are the product of the combustion of carbon-based energy sources such as coal, oil, wood, and natural gas. Some 98 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are energy related.
Cutting carbon-dioxide emissions thus isn't a matter of tweaking an existing process or adding a filter to a smokestack - it requires either dramatic changes in energy production or major reductions in energy use.
For example, the federal Energy Information Administration's calculation of total system costs for land-based wind generated power turn out to be more than 50 percent greater than conventional coal or natural gas power.
Solar photovoltaic electricity costs four times the cost of power from coal or natural gas. Even if we could quickly increase wind's contribution from the 1.3 percent of electricity it generated in 2008, and reduce the percentage generated from fossil fuels from 70.9 percent, the cost of doing so would be staggering.
Yet to actually produce reduced emissions, cap-and-trade must significantly raise energy prices, and so the price of everything made using energy will go up. Such widespread price increases will likely produce both inflation and unemployment, returning us to the stagflation of the 1970s.
Cap-and-trade sounds good, but what it offers is either a chance for politicians to reward special interests or a road to economic ruin. As players in a struggling world economy, we can't afford either.

6 Comments so far
Show AllThis is mainstream media propaganda that promotes elite interests while pretending to criticize emissions trading. It parrots the usual definition of emissions trading (so called "cap and trade") that neglects to distinguish the good part, cap, from the bad part, trade. The media ought to provide links to good, unpoliticized definitions.
According to wikipedia, a non-hierarchical information source, the devil is in the details, naturally buried in the unnecessary complexity of the emissions trading rackets. Under a simple cap, the corruption is much easier to prevent, and effectiveness much easier to achieve.
This horrid mainstream media source proceeds to criticize emissions trading for the wrong reasons: Because the action is taken by the USA unilaterally, it is unfair and less effective. This is bogus because the USA really needs to cut emissions unilaterally to set a good example, to be a good global citizen instead of a giant irresponsible nuisance that generates the bulk of excess carbon emissions in its race to be "king of the hill".
The USA hasn't even begun to set responsible conservation policy.
The elites are really good at turning the problems they create, excess carbon emissions, into further problems, abusive ineffective emissions trading. The elites get their support from a population they addicted to material opiates, who are lost in the unending pursuit of the opiate fix.
The alternative global warming policy is far-left, and holds that emissions trading is to be banned, and caps to be used to not only cut emissions, but to deter corruption, reign in the gluttony, and shift to distributed ownership renewable energy production. The far-left policy is unauthorized/unapproved, and targets the elite establishment for complete dismantling.
http://www.earthpeoples.org/CLIMATE_CHANGE/Indigenous_Peoples_Guide-E.pdf
Indigenous Peoples Guide to False Solutions to Climate Change
an excelent documentation source & activist links.
Pass it around and support peoples who are being criminalized for standing for existing laws and rights. This is not dismantling - it is demanding ACCOUNTABILITY and real democracy.
AMERICA
“My country tis of thee”; what does this mean, is it just for the elites of the country and not for “we the people? For that seems to be the case of the haves and have-nots.
“Sweet land of liberty”; Can we say this with our head held high? Nay! For if there is no law for all and money is justice and for a law that obscenely is called patriot act that harbors and hides what the elites would rather not have ought but themselves see?
“Of thee I sing”; the song has turned to a lament and there has not been for a time a reason or a cause that this sorrow would turn to a gladness that would light the heavens.
“Land where my fathers died”; this could be at any point in our history; yet it would be hard to be straightforward and claim that it has been a truly heroic past, present and maybe into the future.
“Land of the pilgrims pride”; Where is there any pride in the genocide of a host that kept them alive only to be systematically and with intent to eliminate? Pride entered and the fall cometh. Today, tomorrow? We know not the time; the cause happened and the effect will be.
“From every mountain side, let freedom ring”; It would be a difficult task to let anything ring on the side of every mountainside excepting if it were connected in someway to a giant machines spurred on by insatiable greed with no thought to human health or wellbeing as the mountain is reduced to a molehill. The money is removed to a location where the mountain is not the view. The ones left behind at the mountain, do they hear the mountainside ring of freedom? We have left our freedoms at the cesspool of DC with the bankers and politicians. What the lyrics say grabbed my heart and soul when young and read the accepted words in histories, already the dumbing down of the schools was in progress and the future almost predictable. This is my revolt at being so gullible.
Tony 6/13/09
But the self-regulating free market and efficient private industry, incentivized by rational self-interest and the ingenuity of the entrepreneur along with the good ole Yankee can-do attitude...
Yeah, we're being screwed over.
Cost comparison is the glaring hole in this otherwise worthy article. Yes. Cap and trade is unproven and lobbyist friendly, it is a corporatist pipe dream, something like supply side economics.
Solar, wind and wave power do not cost more than coal and oil power. Add the price of war, pollution and social disruption to oil and coal, then compare relative costs.
Solar, wind and waves are so powerful they can be used to export hydrogen and pay off debts.
NAFTA SHMAFTA. The price of all imported goods should be ecologically adjusted for hidden subsidies and environmental costs, quickly.
MSF
Cap & trade is a con game. Money to be made!!!
How about CAP & REDUCE !