The US reduction targets on slide 18 appear under the heading: "To avoid the worst climate impacts, the U.S. must eliminate at least 80% of its emissions by 2050."

Well, no. To avoid the worst climate impacts the U.S. must lead an international effort that will eliminate at least 80% of global emissions (and much sooner than 2050). Reducing domestic emissions is merely putting our own house in order before returning to the global stage.

The analogy only works if all major emitting nations are playing and the major international corporations are not allowed to sneak into other rooms where no one is taking chairs away.

The justification for cap & trade is specious to begin with. It is designed to reduce private sector opposition by cloaking governmental intervention in the guise of the free market. As a practical matter, it can only work if it is enforced, and if it is enforced it will be ferociously opposed.

The best way to illustrate this is to compare emissions cap & trade with the only alternative that can guarantee reductions in fossil fuel use; a cap and phase-down on oil, gas and coal extractions. A supply-side solution (see http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/20/113733/015)  would be far easier to establish and enforce, as there are a just a handful of extractions companies and limited number of major mines and fields. A stepped reduction on extractions would be a more limited market intervention and ensure reductions on the scale and timetable now required.

"But that's impossible!" is the universal reaction. If so, then cap & trade won't work either, because it must reduce fossil fuel use at the same rate (carbon sequestration aside).

Ken Ward ken[at]brightlines.org

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/5/102441/300#com ...

Clearly it must be a global policy with minor leakage to succeed.

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

This reinforces my belief that cap and trade will be a game that favors well connected polluters, and make it harder for new technology to penetrate the market. It will have a much worse benefit to cost ratio than a simple tax on emissions.

Dude, read into it just a little bit more.

If the cap-and-trade uses allocated permits THEN it would have those negative results.

If it used AUCTIONED permits, then it would not have those problems.

_

The whole point of that scenario was to give the impression that allocation is the wrong way to do cap and trade.  Not that cap and trade is inheriently wrong.

-David Ahlport

Dude, did you notice that the Liberman plan gives most credits to the big polluters free of charge?

There are two possibilities;

1    Do what's best for the environment.

2    Do what's best for fund raising.

I just do not share your faith that congress will choose #1.

Simply requiring emitters to pay for the damage their emissions do is the most simple transparent and efficient way to modify the system.

Use the funds collected to accelerate the development of better technology.


Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

1. Congress will set an appropriate tax.  And studiously continue to set an appropriate tax.
   
2. Congress will appropriate spend that tax on something which won't be just a money pit.