Cap-and-trade remains a viable solution

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/x1834674449/Cap-and-trade-remains-a-viable-solution

February 19, 2010

Cap-and-trade remains a viable solution

MICKEY HEPNER The Edmond Sun

EDMOND — Concerned about air pollution, the president of the United States proposes a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce harmful emissions. Congress, seizing on the moment, accepts the president’s challenge and passes the measure with wide bipartisan support. As a result, these harmful emissions are reduced, thereby improving air quality for future generations.

Is this just wishful thinking? Hardly. This is what happened in 1990.

In 1989 President George Herbert Walker Bush, in response to concerns about air quality and acid rain, proposed tough new regulations on sulfur dioxide emissions. His policy of choice was a market-based system devised by economists called “cap-and-trade,” where polluters were given a fixed number of pollution credits each year. Polluters needing more credits for more pollution could buy additional unused credits from other firms. Essentially, this cap-and-trade program would put a price on sulfur dioxide emissions, giving polluters, for the first time, a financial incentive to reduce emissions.

How did Congress respond to the president’s proposal? In a display of bipartisanship rarely seen these days, both Republicans and Democrats rallied around the president’s proposal. Eventually, the measure (the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) passed the House of Representatives on a 401-21 vote, and passed the Senate by an 89-11 margin. While it is interesting to note that Democrats in Congress set aside political posturing and worked with a Republican president to pass important legislation, the best part of the story is that economists were right — cap-and-trade works. Because of that cap-and-trade law, U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions plummeted by 40 percent during the past two decades. As a result, we enjoy cleaner air today.

...

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

[endless october]

1. disagree.

it's a scheme designed to enrich carbon traders and politician carbon traders.

if we want to tackle the problem, let's tackle the problem. build non-CO2 electrical infrastructure coast to coast, and do it now. pay for that instead of war.

cap and trade charges the people who can least afford it. it's not the best way, and it most likely wouldn't work.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Well, this much I can tell you...

It worked here in New York State.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/politics/17cap.html

[endless october]

3. what is the makeup of NY's electricity production?

how much is non-CO2 producing (or nuclear?)

if i gave you the same amount of money in tax dollars instead of spending it on war, you could power the whole state off nuclear or renewable.

cap and trade is a regressive way to get to the same place.

i agree that we need to go to non-CO@ for many reasons. i just see a better way to do it than cap and trade.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Sources

http://www.askpsc.com/askpsc/page/?PageAction=renderPageById&PageId=a8022193f892947a1d26b67506005183#energymix


I'd love to see the entire state powered by renewables, we're actually making pretty good progress in that direction. Our governor, who has been mocked for other reasons, is quite well versed in renewable energy.

However, even with limitless funds, it will take time to make the switch.

Cap and trade is a good way to get utilities to make the switch. The aspect of "cap and trade" that many people don't seem to get, is that if one company cuts their emissions, and a second doesn't, the second company winds up giving their competitor money.

The result is a double penalty (from a competitive viewpoint.)

[endless october]

5. i'd love to see a switch to renewables / nuclear nationwide.

i can't support regressive taxes to do it though when there are so many better ways to fund it.

thanks for the graph. i won't go on and on about how much i despise cap and trade. i do see that there's another side to it and that my own impression of it is not the final one.

i see a real opportunity for us to make energy independence a top priority. i hope that we take that opportunity.

[guardian]

6. "we're actually making pretty good progress in that direction"

How does "<1%" for biomass, wind, and solar translate to "pretty good progress" in being powered by renewables???? I suspect the majority of the hydro-power is from Niagara Falls...built in 1883.