Cap and Trade What?

When the conversation turns to cap and trade, is your first thought: "Oh, that will never work, it's too complicated?" It's true, it can be harder to get one's arms around than a gas tax or even a carbon tax -- who doesn't get taxes, right? -- but cap and trade is a familiar, and an effective means by which to reduce pollution among regulators and industry.

In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants took advantage of the allowance banking provision to reduce SO2 emissions 22 percent (7.3 million tons) below mandated levels for the first phase of the program. And on the global warming front, cap and trade is up and running in 10 states in the northeast and mid-Atlantic, which have pledged to work together to reduce climate altering pollution from regional power plants by 10 percent by 2018.

While driving down pollution, cap and trade will also generate a lot of money for investing in energy efficient programs and clean energy. These investments, in turn, will help to create over 2 million new American jobs in just 2 years.

Cap and Trade is a central feature of the American Clean Energy and Security Act which the House may vote on this week. Please take a minute to tell your representative "vote YES for ACES." Click here for a quick and easy way to send your message. Thanks.

Comments

[Rhetticent]

Why do you guys always have to use the acid rain for your example? Why not use cap and trade systems for carbon dioxide in Europe? Maybe because they are failing miserably?

[Javani]

Funny.

That is why European failure and two carbon bubbles bursting in short time is never mentioned. Goldman not only trades there, but owns one actual carbon exchange.

Often invoked is the "SO2 program." But really, no one knows if this Enron run system "worked". It might have worked more inefficiently than only a traditional capping system. And it only involved major electricity producers, not just about every area of human endeavour as the present bill.

To pass a climate bill in the Senate is easy--just drop cap and trade, keep in the solar and other subsidies. But that won't happen because the money behind this bill, indeed, the money for a decade behind the public relations campaign for "climate change" rules is the cap and traders, Wall Street Finance.

[mioffe]

GHG do not play significant role in global warming.
Properties of water, water droplets, ice, evaporation and water vapor are the best coolers of air.
Clean energy sources-wind, solar cells, nuclear, geothermal not so clear as advertized and will bring to environment more damage than good things.
Our Government must free science of global warming from politic and fire all supporters of ideas that GHG are main players in nature.
As Democrats, as Republicans have the same opinion about GHG. Differences only who is responsible for their amount in nature.
Our mass media must stop propoganda about GHG-it is wrong and very dangerous set of mind.

[sc300nc]

This bill will produce NO measureable improvements in anything. It will, however, be a huge burden on the american middle and lower class, who are struggling daily just to make ends meet. New taxes are not the answer.

[BrendanSP]

Um.... wrong? Stop listening to talking points from the Washington Post and do your own research on the topics. You will find that Cap and Trade is actually one of the most progressive and promising ways of reducing carbon emissions. It "incentivizes" reductions in carbon below what a carbon tax might require. And the lower classes stand to benefit because of the surplus credits that can be directed to their needs in the form of jobs, tax refunds, deposit allowances, and rewards packages.

[Jon Meyer]

How to you feel that this will create jobs? Do you really think that this law would not encourage more outsourcing of our countries already dwindling manufacturing sector. A lot of money will be made in trading the pollution credits if this bill passes.

[Javani]

"It "incentivizes" reductions in carbon below what a carbon tax might require."

No, the "cap" does.

But with trade that gives the polluter a less expensive "out" via purchase of carbon offsets.

That is how the system is constructed, in order that the trading houses to make their money.

IOW, if traditional "caps" are deployed, Clean Air regulations, higher fuel efficiency standards--how does Goldman Sachs make money off that? Same with carbon taxes, the money goes direct to government, traders get no cut, no opportunity to sell exotic carbon-backed papers, and so on.

[rshrink]

La La La land.

" pledged to work together to reduce climate altering pollution from regional power plants by 10 percent by 2018."

Oh goody, goody. If we can't do better than this, we are all doomed. And secondly, at the current rate of job losses, 2 million won't begin to get us back on track. We will likely need to 10 times better on the pollution to have a significant impact on the current environmental destruction and at least 6 times better on the job creation.

[LaurieWilliams]

The Waxman-Markey’s cap-and-trade bill features anemic goals, un-provable offsets, and new coal-fired power plants without carbon sequestration. It also removes EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases from the "capped" facilities. It would disable our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for at least a decade – after which the risk of irreversible climate calamity will be hugely increased.
Waxman-Markey allows a massive level of “offsets,” which blows away the “cap” in cap-and-trade. The two billion metric tons of offsets annually would provide almost 20 years during which cheap, essentially fraudulent offsets would be sufficient to meet all required reductions. These offsets would be counted as environmental progress on paper, while allowing degradation in reality. Those enriched by carbon-offsets, along with others who would profit from the bill’s free permits-to-pollute, would vigorously fight efforts for reform, even after the system’s flaws became obvious.
Waxman-Markey proponentsignore huge differences between the EPA acid rain program and climate challenges. In the Acid Rain program, EPA shepherded a few hundred existing coal-fired power-plant units with extremely accurate emissions measurement through a relatively manageable fuel switch from high-sulfur coal to readily-available, affordable, low-sulfur coal.
Carbon fees with monthly rebates could be the centerpiece of an affordable, equitable and rapid transition to our clean energy future. See http://www.carbonfees.org/home/Cap-and-TradeVsCarbonFees.pdf

[ConservativeHippie]

"While driving down pollution, cap and trade will also generate a lot of money for investing in energy efficient programs and clean energy. These investments, in turn, will help to create over 2 million new American jobs in just 2 years."

Let's hear some specifics Wendy. It sounds like more "pie in the sky" to me, similar to the "green shoots" in the economy; spin.

[Jon Meyer]

I think we should apply the same logic to this idea as we did to the economy recovery bill when the government decided to try to count "saved jobs" when asked about the amount the package created. This way we count the amount of jobs that are outsourced due to the need of companies to compete in a global market.