Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Cap and Trade: A Fatal Distraction
Activists Engage in Direct Action in Numerous US Cities on Nov. 30
Humanity is facing a global emergency on a scale never before encountered. Scientists warn that climate de-stabilization is accelerating beyond worst case scenarios and approaching tipping points of no return. They predict water and food shortages, collapsing governments, regional wars, and chaotic dislocation of large populations. In the face of such transcendent danger, it is an unspeakable tragedy that the legislative process - which could mandate the needed changes - has instead become politicized and hijacked by the very forces responsible for the problem.
The protection of creation is an awesome - and some would say sacred - obligation shared by all. It is thus morally irresponsible to tie the fate of our planet to the whims of Wall Street speculators seeking profits on a trillion dollar market. But this is what is occurring with the decision to employ a cap and trade approach - the buying and selling of "pollution permits" - to address the climate crisis.
The vast complexity of the legislation, and the need to secure 60 votes in the US Senate, has become an invitation for powerful vested interests to flex political muscle, ensure profits, and insert escape routes to avoid regulation. The emission reduction targets have been drastically weakened compared to what science is demanding, as if the immutable laws of physics can somehow be re-arranged for the sake of political convenience.
EPA's authority to regulate carbon has been diminished in the House and offered as bargaining chip in the Senate. Both allow polluters to invest in large quantities of "offsets" - such as forestry and agriculture projects that absorb carbon - as an alternative to actually reducing emissions. However, these projects are vulnerable to abuse and difficult to verify. This would obscure the true story of emission versus absorption, creating major ambiguity regarding an issue that has no room for error. Friends of the Earth has documented that if all "offsets" are employed, actual emission reduction could be delayed for a full 20 years. (http://www.fcnl.org/energy/pdfs/OffsetFlyer.pdf)
What would work? A massive reduction in energy consumption through conservation and efficiency is fundamental, with the remaining demand met by truly renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. A straight carbon fee, continually increased over time, would create a powerful incentive toward adjustments in the economy away from carbon. The revenue would be directly transferred to U.S. citizens in the form of payroll or income tax dividends.
A carbon fee system is being demonstrated in Denmark, Finland, and British Columbia. A 10 minute video entitled "The Huge Mistake" by two EPA environmental attorneys presents the simplicity, transparency, and superiority of carbon fees over cap/trade. This video has been censured by the EPA even though its producers clearly state their views do not represent that agency.
There must be an immediate moratorium on new coal plants without proven carbon separation ability, and the old dirty plants phased out as rapidly as possible. A shift to organic agriculture and a ban on deforestation are also essential. Fossil fuel subsidies should be ended and the bloated military budget redirected to an internationally-coordinated "Marshall Plan" for addressing the crisis.
The Mobilization for Climate Justice is sponsoring direct action in numerous cities today, Monday Nov. 30. The Climate SOS network - of which I am a part - is participating because we believe the situation to be a global emergency. I personally will be taking part in civil disobedience at the Chicago Climate Exchange - the largest carbon market currently operating in the U.S.
A cap and trade system would only create a dangerous illusion of progress, wasting the precious little time humanity has to right its course before tipping points are irrevocably crossed. As we see this as nothing less than a crime against the earth and all of life, we feel compelled by conscience to nonviolently resist such desecration.
- Posted in
18 Comments so far
Show AllTo resist such desecration.
Cap and trade in a nation with a regulated financial industry would be marginally effective at best.
Cap and trade in the current US environment where an unregulated financial industry owns the government will provide one more commodity for the 1% to exploit at the expense of the 99%.
The link to the video "The Huge Mistake" is not working.
Simply go to You Tube and type in "The Huge Mistake" in the search box instead.
Thank you
we need to de-centralize the power grid..... why is it that even w/ solar we ONLY talk about allowing mega-corporations (probably a foreign company)to build a huge solar power plant out in the desert when we should be talking about each home being self contained power generators....solar power may not work in Montana for 12 months of the year but it'd work fine in many southern states.....and it'd work fine for 4-5 months in Montana.... and we have plenty of wind here....
why do we always need the wealthy to profit on EVERYTHING?
oh yea - because they're greed filled vultures and vampires who won't do anything that doesn't increase their all-ready overwhelming wealth........
with enough money I guess they think they can buy their way thru the eye of the needle...
Many places get little sunshine (like where I live), or the wind doesn't blow sufficiently. Some areas (the mid-south US, much of Ohio) have little of either resource. Renewables can only make a significant contribution if they are interconnected on a smart continent-wide grid which can shuttle the energy around from productive regions to unproductive regions as the weather patterns change, or to export the power to unproductive regions.
This grid certainly needs to be operated in a fair and equitable manner but "localism" or individualistic solutions simply won't work in this case. The operative words are energy-solidarity, not energy individualism.
Excellent points.
They don't want to decentralize anything.
Electrical power is political power.
They want to be able to pull the plug on anyone, in order to keep everyone under control.
Doesn't Goldman-Sachs have a budding Crap & Trade derivatives Department?
If this crap legislation goes through it will make the need for a transactions tax (Tobin tax) on every trade more urgent than ever. And of course the new Crap & Trade Exchange should be headquartered on the east coast of Bangladesh!
-30-
You obviously read the crappy bill!! Thank God the piece of garbage seems dead.
Even better, Goldman Sachs has been flogging this for years and they know that essentially it amounts to a straight transfer of taxpayer money BEFORE any implementation. Cap and trade is a disaster and, as Matt Taibbi points out, is essentially the vehicle for the next major bubble burst. Even Al Gore couldn't resist. He's formed his own investment firm with two members of Goldman Sachs' staff. This whole thing is sad and very dangerous.
I'm in total agreement. Cap-n-trade is a joke. We desperately need a direct tax on the use of carbon emitting fuels. And we need to move quickly towards widespread utilization of renewable energy, and more importantly, CONSERVATION.
CARBON TAX and REBATE is great for two reasons.
1. It will stimulate sustainable alternatives. When coal and oil power become more expensive, solar and wind will be cheaper by comparison, so that they will receive more investment and more research, innovation and economy of scale.
2. It is a PROGRESSIVE tax. If you own seven mansions and a fleet of SUV's, you're going to pay a lot more, but if you have one Toyota or, better, take the bus, you'll receive more in rebates than you pay in carbon tax.
But then, do we really expect THIS kleptocracy to pass a progressive tax, when they can give a away more billions to the banks? Maybe when half of Florida is under water, and the California Imperial Valley has returned to desert - but by then we will have passed the tipping point and it will be too late.
But nevertheless, we should publicize the idea of tax and rebate, with the emphasis on the idea that MOST people will get more in rebate than they pay in tax.
I'm a little confused. Can someone PLEASE answer me on this one?
For starters, with a tax, is it predictable at how much global carbon emissions will be cut as it is with cap and trade? I'm saying no, whereas with a cap and trade, yes. (so if coal burner A wants to pollute more than expected, with tax, yes. With cap/trade- no, unless they can purchase more permits)
2. In correlation to the above, how will we know how much reduction of emissions will take place with a tax? How will we know emissions will decrease with taxes? Do we have time to find out? Don't we already use pollution taxes? At least my county in GA does.
3. Who will make sure developing nations are taxing polluters since this is a global problem? Is the US going to enforce Mexico's pollution? Would it not be more efficient, within the regulation arena, to run cap and trade since the heavy polluters would have to buy permits from the more green polluters so the green polluters would in fact regulate in order to make more profit? So in essence, does cap and trade regulate itself?
4. Do we have the time to wait until coal and oil become more expensive? The last I read, we, as a planet, have plenty of coal.
5. Can I purchase caps and then burn them?
6. Maybe we should vote out the rep's who manipulate the full practice of cap and trade? If 100% instead of 10% of caps must be purchased, at the real price as with no grandfather clauses. Wait- does voting out rep's work within a representative democracy? Maybe we could use the profits from cap and trade to repurchase our reps:)
7. Is it not true that cap and trade, used for the decrease of acid rain, has worked incredibly well with a 65% reduction from 1975?
8. Does it not seem that cap and trade, within the carbon market was, in policy, broke down to not work, implemented, and then heavily bashed by large corps under the disguise of 'environmental groups,' since this is the answer to at least kick the shit (at least one good time) out of major polluters?
"Is it not true that cap and trade, used for the decrease of acid rain, has worked incredibly well with a 65% reduction from 1975?"
Yes, cap/trade worked then. But cap/trade doesn't work now. The reason is because in the time between, the society has fallen much further into the cauldron of corruption. The delusions expanded to compensate. We were wading in a big mess before. Now we're swimming in a bigger mess.
The mechanisms don't matter now. Nothing works now. What we need now is a change of values, and a readjustment of the ethical setpoint. It's probably going to take a major catastrophe, such as foreign banks halting their purchase of US Tbills, and ensuing chaos in the cauldron.
Additionally, cap-and-trade in SO2 was simple - install pollution control equipment, or use low-sulfur coal. Ther were no vodoo "offsets" of dubious effectiveness.
But for some downwind areas, cap-and trade nonetheless made sulfur pollution worse. New plants in the Ohio Basin have degraded the environment across the central Applacians, notably Shenandoah National Park through their purchase of sulfur credits from plants in the US west, while they keep burning high sulfur Pennsylvania and Illinois coal. Recently the Sierra Club declared a "victory" when plant construction near Morgantown WV went forward, but they promised to buy extra credits from a far western plant. The net effect will be more SO2 and acid rain for the Dolly Sods wilderness and Shenandoah Park downwind. Guess sthat's why they call themselves the "Sierra Club" becasue they sure didn't help the more ecologically diverse Appalacians.
"What would work? A massive reduction in energy consumption through conservation and efficiency is fundamental, with the remaining demand met by truly renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal."
The author is basically correct. Cap/trade is designed to hijack environmental efforts. It's a "civil" way for elites to "just say no" to the people. We're supposed to reciprocate the "civility" by tolerating this hijacking of our will. Given the mass petro-opiate addictions in the USA, it's too easy to reciprocate.
The task at hand is to wean USans off the petro-opiates. Not only are USans themselves consuming insane amounts of resources, but USans are driving the Chinese to do the same, by fueling the monstrous petro-fried production in China.
Instead of fueling that, USans should be exchanging only with the locals. This solves a number of problems all at once. One thing it does is put the FULL cost of production into the market price. Things are more expensive this way, so people consume less. And the many other benefits of local exchange add to that.
Cap and Trade--developed by Hank Paulson when he was at Goldman Sachs. Yeah..that'll work great.
Carbon Tax? No No No--Doesn't include nuclear. Needs to be a btu tax--revenue neutral (Al Gore said to offset FICA) Can easily exempt alternatives for 5 years to counter the long history of subsidies for oil, gas, nuclear. And, of course, get rid of those subsidies.
Re centralization. Lots of opportunities not mentioned...waste heat recovery, fuel cells as independent power sources, conservation. Centalization is the worst choice.
I agree with those who see the political dimension and evil of centralized power. Gives them more control and, I'm convinced, is designed to buy power where it's relatively cheap and sell it where it's not, thus making it more expensive for those who have low cost power so that, once again, large corporations can profit from the "spread". See, it's not just banks who can do this.