Property From Thin Air
The establishment of a carbon market, like any market that involves awarding novel property rights, hinges on political choices. Some economists rightly think that a better approach would simply tax CO2 emitters, thereby avoiding the politically charged and corruption-prone process of allocating valuable property rights while also making transparent the costs of compliance. The tax approach, however, has been criticized by many environmentalists and most of the established industry. Environmentalists complain that tax systems (by design) make it difficult to predict the actual reduction in emissions. In practice, though, regulators can adjust tax levies as needed. More puzzling is opposition from industry. In theory, the chief benefit of taxation derives from the resulting certainty in the cost of emissions, a fact that makes it much easier to plan investments in power plants, and other large and long-lived infrastructure projects.
Although the logic of investment favors taxation, interested industries typically press for trading markets rather than taxes. They do so because they know that politicians tend to give away the emission credits for free to existing emitters, which constitutes huge windfalls that benefit the politically well-organized establishment. In the past, a few trading systems have auctioned some of their permits, but “big carbon”—including coal mining firms and owners of coal-fired power plants—is organizing to resist such attempts. In the E.U. system, the law forbids governments from auctioning more than one-tenth of carbon permits. U.S. lawmakers meanwhile are poised to embrace similar restrictions. At a summer 2006 hearing of the U.S. Senate to discuss the design of a potential emissions trading system, several American utilities urged that auctions, if used at all, should be limited to just five to 15 percent of total permits.
In other situations in which governments have handed out property rights to private entities—such as licenses for the new, so-called third-generation cell phones—administrators have not encountered such severe political opposition to auctions because industry is not already exploiting the public assets. But pollution markets, unlike other traded commodities such as corn and copper, are legal fiats; that is, they are designated as valuable property where none existed before. This situation is similar to that in the 19th century, when the U.S. Cavalry and overseers of the Homestead Act formally awarded large swaths of previously unclaimed property to settlers in the American West. When it comes to assigning property rights for assets that are already held, politically inspired handouts are the usual rule.
Some of these handouts are politically expedient because they help start a market in which entrenched interests—such as the coal lobby—would otherwise block progress. But if all the credits are given away, the entrenched interests become a bigger danger. The E.U. system envisions reallocating permits possibly every five years, which would deliver fresh handouts during each round, making it harder to dislodge the industries that produce most of the emissions.
It is not yet clear whether the E.U.’s trading system will cut emissions enough to enable Europe to comply with its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Many E.U. nations, especially those in the south, which tend to have the weakest regulatory institutions and political will to fulfill the Kyoto terms, are not on track to meet their targets. Nor is it apparent what will happen now that the E.U. has added 12 new, less-wealthy members (such as Bulgaria and Romania). Few of them have the capabilities to manage an emissions trading system. Some of these countries are now even challenging the emissions trading scheme in court because they claim its demands constitute a drag on economic growth. Our sense is that the most committed governments will work to ensure that the E.U. complies with its Kyoto commitments as a whole, notably by purchasing emission credits overseas from the clean development mechanism and from a similar system that allows governments to obtain credits in Russia and other “transition” countries. As is normal in international environmental law, it is likely that all countries that have joined the Kyoto Protocol will comply on paper even if formal observance does not actually do much to solve the underlying problem.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentThis type of system will just make undeveloped countries more competitive, now if the credits are only within a country or group it might be OK. In addition positive action to reduce our impact on the environment and to mitigate the effects are required. These credits do nothing in these areas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion: To mesh a carbon tax with cap-and-trade, should the government not put a MINIMUM price on carbon, not a ceiling, as the article asserts? (Ref. 3rd para. under 'A Four-Step Plan.')
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisE.D.
Ottawa
Canada
Clicking on the links to the Figures brings one to a slide show on endangered birds!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeleted and replaced with revised version
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Duane Pendergast at 12/21/2007 10:36 AM
This is an excellent discussion and review of carbon trading concepts and initiatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is, however, no discussion of market possibilities to encourage removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Perhaps this is a consequence of the common assumption that it is better to capture emissions at source rather than try to deal with them after release.
The sidebar on "The Carbon Trade" focuses on cap and trade and so-called "offset exchange" in connection with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). I find the use of "offset" in that context somewhat of a misnomer as the carbon emissions discussed may not be offset in the usual sense. In the example discussed, it is implied that emissions from the developed countries will be compensated by reductions in emissions in developing countries. I suspect the reality in practice will be that increasing emissions from the developed countries will support projects in developing countries which will have somewhat lower emissions than might have occurred without CDM. The total net result will be increased carbon dioxide emissions.
There is developing recognition of a concept that would actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it to durable char or charcoal, which could then be used to sequester carbon in soil. Some researchers believe the sequestered carbon will play an additional role by significantly improving soil fertility. Interested readers can find information on this concept by searching for "terra preta" on the WWW.
Perhaps policy makers should relax their dogged focus on reducing CO2 emissions and consider the possibility they may constitute an opportunity to enhance the environment for life on earth.
Duane Pendergast
--
Edited by Duane Pendergast at 12/21/2007 10:29 AM
Sorry for double post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by erichj at 12/22/2007 10:28 AM
I thought this ubiquitous carbon sink might interest you. Here's the current news and links on Terra Preta (TP)soils and closed-loop pyrolysis of Biomass, this integrated virtuous cycle could sequester 100s of Billions of tons of carbon to the soils.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTerra Preta Soils Technology To Master the Carbon Cycle
This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
UN Climate Change Conference: Biochar present at the Bali Conference
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/steinerbalinov2107
SCIAM Article May 15 07;
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=5670236C-E7F2-99DF-3E2163B9FB144E40
After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies.
Could you please consider looking for a champion for this orphaned Terra Preta Carbon Soil Technology.
The main hurtle now is to change the current perspective held by the IPCC that the soil carbon cycle is a wash, to one in which soil can be used as a massive and ubiquitous Carbon sink via Charcoal. Below are the first concrete steps in that direction;
S.1884 The Salazar Harvesting Energy Act of 2007
A Summary of Biochar Provisions in S.1884:
Carbon-Negative Biomass Energy and Soil Quality Initiative
for the 2007 Farm Bill
http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html
If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP web site I've been drafted to co-administer. http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
It has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of EPRIDA , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who's back round I don't know have joined.
If pre-Columbian Kayopo Indians could produce these soils up to 6 feet deep over 15% of the Amazon basin using "Slash & CHAR" verses "Slash & Burn", it seems that our energy and agricultural industries could also product them at scale.
Harnessing the work of this vast number of microbes and fungi changes the whole equation of energy return over energy input (EROEI) for food and Bio fuels. I see this as the only sustainable agricultural strategy if we no longer have cheap fossil fuels for fertilizer.
We need this super community of wee beasties to work in concert with us by populating them into their proper Soil horizon Carbon Condos.
Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
(540) 289-9750
shengar@aol.com
who can deny the politics behind the science of climate ,and how some thinktanks with funding support from north influence policies .is the finding of IPCC on glcier melts the tip of the iceberg of the science hoodo act to serve the interests of the developed world. why not the north show the lead in changing life styles and social systems to suit the ethics and economics of sustainable resource use and development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisno one can deny the economic advantage to the west in carbon trade while continuing to pollute.the advantage to the less developed is inflated and projected while the cost benefit in real terms favours the more developed .the developing world is increasingly being depicted as more responsible for future pollution. the science behind the future scenarios are highly dubious and influenced by vested intersts through funding support and peer pressure.
china and india are being shown as villains through data manipulation and GCM computer dta are being used for this jugglery. the world bodies are being hijacked partly for this ,and pachauri is suitably awarded. the very architects of the carbon trading have finally backed out of the protocol so that their interests are best served both ways,and scuttling that of competitors and potential growth centers.the credits are loaded in favour of the west through science and technology fixes . the world bodies are toeing the line for funds. what is needed is not more of the same but a drastic relook at the western model of growth and development through resource exploitation and depletion ,and focus on economics at the cost of ecology ,in real terms ,while making it appear as if the south is more obsessed with growth than environment through a game of data manipulation and jugglery of all sorts.it is high time that the politics of climate is called off through more transparent science. the developing world needs to be equipped and oriented towards this through support structures and a process of relearning
We'll review the basic types of car auctions, give the pros and cons of each auto auction, the scams you may encounter, how to tell if a car has been damaged and repaired, or flooded. We'll help you answer the question "should I try to buy a car from an auto auction?". You'll also find the most comprehensive resource on the web with information on car title checks, spotting stolen cars, flooded cars, and rebuilt wrecks, airbag and other scams to avoid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisauto auctions
<a href="http://www.gov-auctions.org" rel="dofollow">auto auctions</a>
We'll review the basic types of car auctions, give the pros and cons of each auto auction, the scams you may encounter, how to tell if a car has been damaged and repaired, or flooded. We'll help you answer the question "should I try to buy a car from an auto auction?". You'll also find the most comprehensive resource on the web with information on car title checks, spotting stolen cars, flooded cars, and rebuilt wrecks, airbag and other scams to avoid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisauto auctions
<a href="http://www.gov-auctions.org" rel="dofollow">auto auctions</a>