Comments on: Cap and Trade 101: Why "Free" Allowances Are OK

By: Sharon Cox

Sharon Cox — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:00:45 +0000

If you look at the Waxman-Markey bill, it gives coal a free ride for 10 years. The majority of the costs are shifted to much cleaner natural gas, so natural gas usage for making electricity will decline because it will bear a tax that coal usage won’t – at least for the first ten year. At the end of the ten years, the natural gas industry will be so decimated that there won’t be sufficient supplies to meet the needs, so Congress will then decide that they need to give coal more time because it is our only fuel to create electricity in the quantities we require it. So, this bill that is purported to make us shift to cleaner fuels will in fact guarantee that we do not.

By: Sharon Cox

Sharon Cox — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:00:00 +0000

By: Ian

Ian — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:00:57 +0000

Susan,

Just because “the point” of cap-and-trade is to fund the transition to clean energy, that is irrelevant. Why? Re-read what Steve: cap-and-trade as we have it now “doesn’t provide any structure or funding for making the transition to clean energy”.

To make this clear to you: cap-and-trade as it stands now isn’t structured to “buy the infrastructure” let alone research how to develop and deploy new technologies. Emissions reductions will come through easy and economical efficiency gains, but cap-and-trade will fail to change the fundamental polluting character of our energy system. The reason for that? Again, no incentives for massive new infrastructure or technology.

Separately, to back up Madhav’s point: the entire legitimacy of the EU market trading scheme has been called into question repeatedly. Try searching around and reading about it. You can start here: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6832259.ece

By: Ian

Ian — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Susan,

By: Madhav

Madhav — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:41:44 +0000

The cap in the Waxman-Markey bill is hardly a cap at all. Maybe a visor. Or a sweatband?

By: Madhav

Madhav — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:41:00 +0000

The cap in the Waxman-Markey bill is hardly a cap at all. Maybe a visor. Or a sweatband?

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:22:00 +0000

Steve, the whole point of Cap and Trade is to fund that transition to clean energy, because that is how we will reduce our energy emissions. Plus efficiency, (which is also funded by Cap and Trade)

That is how Europe reduced theirs. They didn’t just stop using energy.

See Related stories link above.

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:42:00 +0000

Since Cap and Trade has now “reduced Europe’s emissions by 50-100 million metric tons a year since 2005, reducing its carbon emissions by 2.5-5% annually.” on what grounds is that criticism?

Source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/europe-cap-and-trade-works.php

By: Steve from Boulder CO

Steve from Boulder CO — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:43:28 +0000

The issue is not whether the allowances are free or must be paid for, it’s who gets the free ones and who has to pay. That’s where the politics destroy this approach.

But the real issue with cap-and-trade is that it doesn’t provide any structure or funding for making the transition to clean energy. All the new infrastructure still has to be bought, so why not simply set a carbon tax adequate to pay for the conversion and get on with it?

That’s what the states that have renewable portfolios are doing in effect – charging utility customers to pay for the wind and solar. Much simpler and cleaner and more direct.

By: Steve from Boulder CO

Steve from Boulder CO — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:43:00 +0000

The issue is not whether the allowances are free or must be paid for, it’s who gets the free ones and who has to pay. That’s where the politics destroy this approach.

That’s what the states that have renewable portfolios are doing in effect – charging utility customers to pay for the wind and solar. Much simpler and cleaner and more direct.

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:22:11 +0000

Steve, the whole point of Cap and Trade is to fund that transition to clean energy, because that is how we will reduce our energy emissions. Plus efficiency, (which is also funded by Cap and Trade)

That is how Europe reduced theirs. They didn’t just stop using energy.

See Related stories link above.

By: Madhav

Madhav — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:20:42 +0000

Are you kidding???? Stavins has many critics. Dozens, and all very intelligent. I would consider some of their viewpoints before concluding that free allowances are OK.

By: Madhav

Madhav — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:20:00 +0000

Are you kidding???? Stavins has many critics. Dozens, and all very intelligent. I would consider some of their viewpoints before concluding that free allowances are OK.

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:42:52 +0000

Since Cap and Trade has now “reduced Europe’s emissions by 50-100 million metric tons a year since 2005, reducing its carbon emissions by 2.5-5% annually.” on what grounds is that criticism?

Source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/europe-cap-and-trade-works.php