Death of Cap and Trade (Thank God!)

[broken_legs]

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...n-dies-no.html

Global warming-inspired cap and trade has been one of the most stridently debated public policy controversies of the past 15 years. But it is dying a quiet death. In a little reported move, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on Oct. 21 that it will be ending carbon trading — the only purpose for which it was founded — this year.

[CUG]

How fucking American is that? "Climate Exchange" fuck off already.

[RecoilS14]

It was a convoluted idea to begin with. I'm happy its gone.

[Scuderia]

One of the most useless idea's ever bestowed upon the American people. It's funny what those people can find to kill a trillion dollars on.

[Seth1968]

Check out this comment from the link:

Tin Hat says:
5 days ago, 4:00:21 AM
“It was a huge profit center for the banks, but it was also much more than that. I read HR 2454, the version that passed the House June 26, 2009. All 1428 pages of it. If passed, it would have fundamentally changed the way every American lives.

In addition to carbon trading:
* It would have put many organic/sustainable farmers out of business by making compost virtually illegal.
* It was a huge rationing project that had a stated goal of total energy reduction of 83% by 2050. This cut was across every sector of the economy: medical, industrial, residential, etc.
* It demanded all buildings to be retrofitted to green standards within 5 years.
* It also created "Green Banking". A new banking group to deal in government backed loans to literally everyone (regardless of income) for the purpose of this retrofitting. New financial products and underwriting guidelines were to be created to facilitate low income loans. Sounded like new CDS, MBS and liars loans to me.
* It demanded all manufactured homes built before 1976 to be dismantled and recycled.
* It required new standards on all vehicles and machinery, heavy and light.
* Created a program called WaterSense which included everything in regards to water. Pipes, infrastructure, toilets, shower heads, etc.
* The bill allowed for utility companies to raise their rates to cover any lost revenue from reduction in power use.
* It regulated fireplaces, charcoal stoves and outdoor grills. It set up a program to give green cooking appliances to 3rd world countries at US expense.
* It regulated and restricted all outdoor lighting, from street lights to swimming pools.
* It created so many new government agencies, I lost count half way through the bill. (page 574) it went into a new agency that was to measure the carbon content of products across the entire carbon life cycle. Product meant virtually everything: paper, cement, aluminum, chemicals, food, beverage, hygiene, cleaning, household cleaners, construction, metals, clothing, semiconductors......
* Created a Building Energy Performance Labelling Program to categorize and distribute the information gathered from building inspections.
* It required permits and studies for all new building to safeguard native plants.
* Created an infrastructure for electric car use.
* Created a new system of unemployment benefits and retraining for permanent job loss.
* Created new subsidies for those who could no longer afford energy.
* Mass data collection, use and storage was a frequently recurring theme throughout the bill.
* Oddly enough, it never stated what these new green energy standards were. It created a new government agency to figure it all out.

This is a very brief summary of that monstrosity. Strangely, there was little in it about real pollution and emitting truly toxic chemicals into the environment. I'm so relieved it's dead. It would have sent what's left of the economy straight into the depths of Hell.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Check out this comment from the link:

Tin Hat says:
5 days ago, 4:00:21 AM
“It was a huge profit center for the banks, but it was also much more than that. I read HR 2454, the version that passed the House June 26, 2009. All 1428 pages of it. If passed, it would have fundamentally changed the way every American lives.

I wasn't aware of all the other things in the but what i quoted above is the main reason Im against it.

It's just another trading scheme that the banks can use to goose profits.

So supposedly some business gets carbon credits by *not creating carbon* ???? WHAT???? And then they can sell those to other companies that are creating carbon???

So there is not actually any reduction in carbon emissions, it only increases the cost for carbon emitters to do business - Meanwhile the banks are buying and trading carbon futures, speculating in the market and driving up the prices of carbon. Passing their trading profits onto the corporations that need the carbon credits, and thus making everything for everyone more expensive without actually reducing any real carbon emissions. It's just a shell game where the banks can reap massive profits.

Some of the biggest proponents of Cap and Trade were bank lobbyists. That should tell you all you need to know.

[DRKM]

I was just listening to Rutherford and aperently they are going to try that in alberta

[Zewind]

Originally posted by DRKM
I was just listening to Rutherford and aperently they are going to try that in alberta

its just an extreme move to get better regulations on the oilsands. I doubt it will fly

[davidI]

Cap and Trade was a terrible idea from the outset. The credits grandfathered to historically intense emitters basically rewarded the polluters who got into this mess. The determination of a "baseline" to compare against was also ridiculous and too arbitrary in my mind. I should also add that it was such a complex and convuluted proposition that businesses didn't understand how it would affect them and the administration costs are huge.

I still think a carbon tax is the way to go if we truly want to reduce carbon emissions. Put the tax on fuel and electricity at the consumer level and you may be able to change behaviour. Utilities would also hopefully move towards a cleaner energy mix in order to lower the fee on their electricity generation.

If people continue to waste energy, at least the tax revenue could be used towards renewable energy, CCS, or clean-coal / natural gas to mitigate the effects. Even if the government used the revenue to subsidize utilities in developing a greener electricity stream I'd be ok with that. The nice thing is that it's more of a "user" fee in that the people paying more for clean energy are the same people that are using more energy.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm not a fan of the one-off solar systems for homes as I would expect that they're not as efficient (cost / benefit) as the larger renewable projects. I think the Ontario government made a big mistake in subsidizing such one-off projects and should instead focus on people reducing demand and industry creating a more environmentally friendly energy mix.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by davidI

I still think a carbon tax is the way to go if we truly want to reduce carbon emissions. Put the tax on fuel and electricity at the consumer level and you may be able to change behaviour. If people continue to waste energy, at least the tax revenue could be used towards renewable energy, CCS, or clean-coal / natural gas to mitigate the effects.

IMO Peak Everything happening over the next 5-10 years is going to be enough of a tax as it is. We should see prices of all energy rising like crazy as resources become scarce. Does it really make sense to tax things even more?

I think the carbon tax is a good idea but we missed that boat - The time for doing this was 20 years ago.

[davidI]

Originally posted by broken_legs


IMO Peak Everything happening over the next 5-10 years is going to be enough of a tax as it is. We should see prices of all energy rising like crazy as resources become scarce. Does it really make sense to tax things even more?

I think the carbon tax is a good idea but we missed that boat - The time for doing this was 20 years ago.

The time to introduce such a tax was definitely when the economy was booming. I think it would be an effective way of cooling the economy and should be considered again if inflation rockets up as some people expect it might.

Yes, an increase in commodity prices may help, but the energy markets tend to be inelastic to price change. Furthermore, an increase in the cost of oil, gas, and renewable energy will just make utilities and consumers demand more low cost energy sources such as more dirty coal power. Increasing commodity prices are not necessarily in-line with their carbon content, and thus it may lead to an dirtier energy mix.

My final pet peeve / rant is on how utilities bill for water and electricity. I was always pissed to see that 80% of my bills were for fixed fees and less than 20% was for the variable costs of my actual use. There's no incentive to reduce use when it's such a small proportion of your monthly cost. Lower the fixed costs and increase the variable costs to punish the users! If there are concerns about competitiveness in certain industries because of this (manufacturing?) then put in a tax credit for those specific industries to keep Alberta / Canada competitive.

[davidI]

Oh, and in 20 years when we're still hooked on cheap energy, people will still be saying that it's "20 years too late" to put in a Carbon Tax. The time to do it is when the economy pics up and the BoC needs to find a way to cool inflation. Instead of jacking up interest rates and depressing the housing market (and risk popping a bubble, if there is one), why not cool it by putting in greener policies.

The EU has agreed to a 20-20-20 policy and it's making North America look terribly behind and will probably hurt our competitiveness in the long run. The EU is targeting GHG emissions 20% below 1990 levels, reducing primary energy use by 20% compared to projected levels and will obtain 20% of their energy from renewables by 2020. Once the initial capital outlay has been spent on those renewables ($$$) it's basically free energy. Next decade, when North Americans are competing with the developing world for oil & natural gas at inflated prices, how will we be able to compete with countries who had the foresight to develop cheap sources?