So, the other day Alisa was telling me about something she had heard Sean Hannity say, (our radio is usually on KSL for news, neither of us listen to Hannity as a rule, he's a colossal tool). Anyway, he was spouting something about the current Cap and Trade bill co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner in the Senate. Now, as far as democrat Senators go, I like Lieberman pretty well. Not because I agree with all of his stances, but more because he seems to have them, and I respect that. I would rather someone I disagree with, that actually stands for something, then someone that I agree with a bunch of their stances, but I can tell they only hold them as long as they are politically expedient, but I digress.
Anyway, as I knew very little about the bill, I googled it. I found this article that I thought was a fairly simple, and merely informative piece. Its not long, and if you want to get just a rudimentary bare bones idea of the proposal, it will clue you in. It also, thankfully, seems to just provide information, gives both sides stances and the basic arguments for both. Interesting thing is, everyone on this one has a pretty good point. I guess it just comes down to what you think is the most important thing in the debate.
Here is the basic (very basic) idea to the proposal.
First, carbon emissions are damaging to the environment (whether or not you believe in global warming doesn't matter here, you should still be able to, out of intellectual honesty, admit that more emissions are worse, fewer emissions are better). This bill would set up a system of permits allowing companies that use fossil fuels to emit a certain amount of junk into the atmosphere. The cap portion of the bill comes in in the fact that the number of permits is limited. This cap continues to decrease over the next few decades, forcing businesses that use fossil fuels to either become more efficient or to find alternate ways to power whatever it is they are using the fossil fuels for, because at the end of the day, they will just not be able to do business the same way they are now.
Second, the trade aspect of the bill. Companies can use the permits themselves, bank them for later, or trade (sell) them to other companies who need more than they have. This is a little shout out to free market system creating an incentive to pollute less, thus use less of your own permits.
The money raised by this program, in theory, would be used in part to offset rising energy costs, and in part to fund incentives to alternate energy sources, i.e. wind and solar.
Is this idea perfect, no. Without a doubt this will raise costs, pretty much across the board. It will cost corporations money, money they aren't just going to eat, it will be passed on to consumers. Probably most visibly in the energy industry. Energy will cost more. While I think that will bring about some positive changes: looking for more ways to conserve what you use as a personal household, encouraging the growth of alternate forms of energy (see my post about blue sky from last month), and all together making those that don't care see that there is a need for change; it will without a doubt have bad consequences. Some may already be doing all that they reasonably can to be efficient and resourceful, not wasting etc.. These people will also be hit with energy cost increases. I don't think thats a good thing.
I look at these two ideas, the pros and the cons, and I still have to say that on the whole, the idea sounds pretty good. It is not perfect, and their will be costs. I don't for a second believe the real doom and gloom prognosticators who claim millions of jobs will be lost, etc.. And I guess in the end, I don't believe there is any way to change our countries mindset and wild dependence on fossil fuel driven energy (which I see as a major catastrophe just waiting to happen, as well as being horrible stewardship of the earth), without some cost to the public. It will be hard, and may be extremely hard for some. However, the alternate costs of doing nothing will, in the end, be much, much greater.
So, do I think that this is THE ANSWER? Eh, I'm not going to proclaim this idea perfect, I've heard some variations that people argue would be better, I don't know if they would be or not. But I do believe that in the long run this program would be helpful in setting us down the road to a less fossil fuel dependent energy producing people, which I see as an incredibly important thing. So, I give it my support, with a few reservations.
Just so you can read more of an opposition type article, this guy seems to hate the idea. He lays forth pretty much all of the opposition reasons to oppose the plan. But, to be honest, I guess where I disagree with him the most is that I get the idea while I read his article, that he really doesn't see our current system as that big of a problem, so if nothing changes, oh well, not that big of a deal.
Anyway, thats my take on it.
5 comments:
How did you post this at 6:07 am on 6/04? I was sitting on a train discussing soccer with you at that time.
Once you accept the principle that we ought to replace our main power sources with something better (renewable, less polluting, less vulnerable to foreign political turmoil, etc.), you must accept that there is a price to pay. TANSTAAFL. But this is our problem, and has been for some time. It's a much bigger obstacle than the technological problems, which are far from solved. Short-term, it's just plain cheaper to keep doing the same old thing--even at the current price of petroleum. Those who are willing to make the change are going to have to sacrifice for the greater good. And who does the sacrifice thing nowadays?
Change is hard, and in some cases impossible. I can't afford an electric car, or even a hybrid. Those who can, don't have enough places to recharge them. If one of the major energy corporations were to start installing recharging stations for which there is currently little demand, our 401(k)s would lose money. Nuclear power plants are politically impossible; they have prohibitive costs and huge NIMBY problems. The specific issues go on and on. I'm skeptical that a new start-up energy company could shake things up sufficiently, because it's hard to sink lots and lots of money into an idea that won't make money for a long long time.
As a libertarian sympathizer I hate to say it, but maybe we have a genuine market failure here. Maybe the state ought to give our energy problems a bigger push than they have so far.
In general I support a CnT system. Will and I had a discussion about it and carbon tax. I pefer CnT over the tax. However the biggest reservation I have about CnT is that in most systems it is a virtual energy ration. At high enough levels of permits it won't feel like a ration, but at those levels the system will have a nominal impact.
RFB outlines my major problem with CnT. On the surface, it's sounds like a market-based approach for reducing carbon emissions. But, in practice, it's straight up rationing.
I agree with Dan and Letterman that alternative energy is the way to go. But, I don't think we have to legislate higher fuel prices to do it. There's nothing in this CnT bill that $140 a barrel gas prices won't accomplish economically. High gas prices create built-in incentives for the development of more efficient engines and processes and alternative energy. Congress should be helping this along with more tax and economic incentives for greener technology rather than purposefully making the current and near-future price of fuel higher.
I don't see a market failure here...the market just needs more time to work.
At the end of the day, I think the current bill imposes draconian regulations and, even if they accomplish everything they're intended to, they won't have any practical effect on world-wide carbon emissions or global warming. So, as letterman says, some hardship may be necessary. I kinda see this bill as creating hardship for hardships sake.
Bry don't you think the carbon tariff section in the bill will have some impact on world carbon issues? Just wondering because my knowledge on hidden tariff policies are rather weak.
Post a Comment