It's also not exactly true that investors don't care. There's a lot of venture capital money going into alt.energy, and there's a new coalition of institutional investors <http://www.ceres.org> pushing for strong action by Washington to impose carbon limits. The Ceres stuff is too mild for what's needed, but again, they're not looking for excuses to prolong business as usual.
Do you object to carbon taxes? I don't see much in the book ms. you sent me about them. They're a market-based policy, but they seem to me the most effective and efficient way of going about serious GHG reduction short of abolishing the commodity form.
As for what Stern wants, here are some quotes from the summary of his Review <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/8AC/F7/Executive_Summary.pdf>:
> Establishing a carbon price, through tax, trading or regulation, is
> an essential
> foundation for climate-change policy.
>
> The first element of policy is carbon pricing. Greenhouse gases
> are, in economic
> terms, an externality: those who produce greenhouse-gas emissions
> are bringing
> about climate change, thereby imposing costs on the world and on
> future
> generations, but they do not face the full consequences of their
> actions themselves.
>
> Putting an appropriate price on carbon – explicitly through tax or
> trading, or implicitly
> through regulation – means that people are faced with the full
> social cost of their
> actions. This will lead individuals and businesses to switch away
> from high-carbon
> goods and services, and to invest in low-carbon alternatives.
> Economic efficiency
> points to the advantages of a common global carbon price: emissions
> reductions will
> then take place wherever they are cheapest.
> Creating a broadly similar carbon price signal around the world,
> and using
> carbon finance to accelerate action in developing countries, are
> urgent
> priorities for international co-operation.
>
> A broadly similar price of carbon is necessary to keep down the
> overall costs of
> making these reductions, and can be created through tax, trading or
> regulation. The
> transfer of technologies to developing countries by the private
> sector can be
> accelerated through national action and international co-operation.
> There are a number of elements which will contribute to a credible
> vision for the EU
> ETS. The overall EU limit on emissions should be set at a level
> that ensures
> scarcity in the market for emissions allowances, with stringent
> criteria for allocation
> volumes across all relevant sectors. Clear and frequent
> information on emissions
> during the trading period would improve transparency in the market,
> reducing the
> risks of unnecessary price spikes or of unexpected collapses.
It's easy for a bunch of high-minded economists - representing the most humane and thoughtful wing of the ruling class - to say things like that in a report. What happens in the real world of politics is a completely different thing. But folks on our side of the spectrum should at least characterize the thinking of the liberal bourgeoisie accurately.
Doug
On Apr 18, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:
> To get to the heart of this dispute Doug, it's this:
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>> The are two parts to cap-and-trade systems, as the name
>> suggests - the capping part and the trading part. The caps are
>> supposed to decline over time. So oil companies and other polluters
>> are not going to be free to pollute at the level they always have.
>> And once again, in this passage you elide the differences between c&t
>> and carbon offsets. They're not in contradiction, but they're not the
>> same either.
>> There are a lot of problems with c&t - extreme volatility of permit
>> prices and intense administrative difficulties. But it's not fair to
>> deny that proponents aim to see the level of emissions decline over
>> time.
>
> I asked Michael Dorsey (Dartmouth environmentalist and contributor to
> the new book) about whether I (and Rehana and Graham) unfairly
> characterised the conflict. His reply:
>
> The idea that the " proponents aim to see the level of emissions
> decline
> over time." is very misleading.
>
> Yes the
> Stern-ites of the world want this. But investment capital does not
> care. They are not moving their money into this for solving climate
>
> change. They are doing soon because this is a risk-laden speculator's
> bonanza.
>
> Let's take just the simple problem of grandfathering the pollution...
> not even the real or most nasty loophole...
>
> Basically here the state gives away the Carbon Emission Reductions, as
> is happening in Europe, but look at the US example:
>
> If the target of 1990 emissions by 2010 is implemented, 1,340 million
> metric tons of permits would be issued each year (according to the
> Energy Information Administration's 1997--Kyoto opening year-- Annual
> Energy Outlook). Current estimates of the cost of carbon regulation
> suggest the marginal cost of this target will be in the range $25 to
> $150/t. If the marginal cost, and hence the permit price, is $100 per
> metric ton, an efficient auction could raise $134 billion annually --
> approximately ten percent of federal receipts and around two
> percent of
> U.S. gross national product (GNP) in 1995. If permits are
> grandfathered
> to companies in the energy sector, two percent of GNP is given away.
>
> In terms of the cap business this is the easiest loophole, just sue
> your
> way through it:
>
> From our buds at Point Carbon:
>
> '28.02.07 US Steel Kosice takes EC to court over Slovak NAP
>
> 'US Steel Kosice, which operates Slovakia's largest steel plant,
> has filed a
> legal complaint against the European Commission over its decision
> to reject
> the country's allocation plan for the second phase of the EU emissions
> trading scheme.
>
> 'Slovakia's government has already filed a lawsuit of its own against
> Brussels over the latter's 29 November decision to reject Slovakia's
> proposal to hand out 41.3 million allowances annually over
> 2008-2012 for
> companies participating in the EU ETS. The Commission said Slovakia
> would
> only be allowed to allocate 30.9 million allowances per year.
> US Steel Kosice has now filed a legal complaint against the Commission
> decision.
>
> "We strongly believe that it is not fair to restrict Slovakia's CO2
> emissions when it is obvious that the country is in compliance with
> the
> Kyoto agreement. USSK did so with the aim to protect the interest
> and rights
> of our employees and shareholders," company spokesman Jan Baca told
> Point
> Carbon.'
>
> Offsets they add even more distortion. And while he is right to
> know and
> note that C&t is not offsetting the fact is is that the C&T
> marketplace
> allows for offsetting.
>
> So while DH may not want this, or see it as a problem, until this
> factor
> is taken out fully and the damage already done is fixed, we have to
> look
> at offsets. To do otherwise is illegitimate.
>
>
>
>>
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk