Folks in Olympia working on as yet un-finalized cap & trade legislation might want to take note (h/t, with more analysis, via HotAir):
Set up to price pollution out of existence, carbon trading is pricing it back in. Europe's carbon markets are in collapse.Yet the hiss of escaping gas is almost inaudible. There's no big news headline, nothing sensational for TV viewers to watch; no queues outside banks or missing Texan showmen. You can't see or hear a market for a pollutant tumble. But at stake is what was supposed to be a central lever in the world's effort to turn back climate change. Intended to price fossil fuels out of the market, the system is instead turning them into the rational economic choice.
All the more reason a go-slow approach would be more than a little prudent. The basic lesson of the European experience - touched on as well by Todd Myers at the Washington Policy Center - is this: if you're serious about a strong economy, your cap & trade system can't be rigorous. If you're really serious about carbon emissions, setting aside whether that's ultimately a worthy end goal, then the only way the system will really work is by sticking it to the economy.
Wonder which choice most elected officials will ultimately make?
UPDATE: major modification of the Senate version of a cap & trade bill raises further questions about the future of this issue in the Legislature. The House version essentially kicks forward the implementation date, requires a working group to construct a relevant system (which would then be debated by the Legislature), and requires major consideration of economic impact. The Senate version in contrast sets up an optional system, though both substitute bills have moved substantially away from the Governor's original bill.
This will be interesting to watch.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 25, 2009 05:16 PM | Email ThisOriginal HB 1819 (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions) was 28 pages; SHB 1819 that got ''do pass'' majority in House Ecology & Parks was down to 15 pages and deferred some actions.... although note the Substitute bill is ''better'' only in comparison to the monstrosity that was the original HB 1819. If we're lucky the $8+ billion and counting deficit MIGHT just be enough to trigger whatever residue of common sense some of the (D)s still have, and cause enough of them to join with the (R)s in making SHB 1819 and companion SB 5735 ''become disappeared'' this time around.
I'm also not sure that the goal of the carbon market is to "price fossil fuels out of the market". I think its goal is to make it expensive to keep increasing carbon output -- and it seems to be succeeding at that. Some companies may indeed be increasing their carbon output, but that is compensated by companies whose output is decreasing (that is, the companies who are selling their permits). That may be discouraging some companies from investing in cleaner technologies right now, but its also freeing them from the burden of making that investment in a time of economic hardship. Later on, when the economy is stronger, they will find that the cost of pollution is rising, but they will be in a better position to do something about it. Some companies may even be able to fund at least part of their cleanup costs by selling at a higher price the permits they acquired so cheaply during the recession.
Finally, this recession provides an excellent opportunity for environmental groups to put their money where their mouths are. If the costs of pollution permits is so low, they can buy them up cheaply and permanently retire them, much in the same way the Nature Conservancy and other groups buy land and permanently protect it from development.
Posted by: scottd on February 25, 2009 10:16 AMand
"The market must be unashamedly rigged to force supply below demand. The obvious way would be to cut the number of permits in circulation, but in a recession no government will be brave enough to do that."
Taxes are not punishment, they are investment in the commons. If they are mismanaged that's another story.
Posted by: Acid Brain on February 25, 2009 10:37 AMhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html
ALL the money invested in wind & solar and ZERO impact on Carbon Emissions. ZERO.
Yes, they have reduced dependence on foreign oil by 15% which is a good thing at a tremendously high cost.
But the Gorebiacs DO NOT want you to read this.
Read it carefully...you will be amazed & entertained.
The president wants Congress to use this same method to redistribute the income of Americans. See this Washington Post article:
Today, the White House will unveil a budget that assumes there will be revenue from an emissions trading system by 2012. Sources familiar with the document said it would direct $15 billion of that revenue to clean-energy projects, $60 billion in tax credits for lower- and middle-income working families, and additional money to help offset higher energy costs for families, small businesses and communities.
Good Post.... Ze Energy Maan
I was thinking of the ORIGINAL versions of both bills.
It is and has for some time now been pretty clear that some kind of ''climage change'' legislation was going to pass during this Session:
It was a priority for the Gov; and the (D)s running the Legislature have to at least make a show of delivering SOMETHING to their eco-at-any-price supporters. But the latest developments in both the House and Senate makes me a little more hopeful that we can for the most part dodge the ''dead center'' bullet on ''climate change'' this year (might still suffer a few minor flesh wounds, but that's better than taking a .308 round in the chest).
SIDEBAR kudos to my favorite (D): Sen. Tim Sheldon. I noted in the latest Bill Report on SB 5735 that he joined (R)s on the committee in voting for ''Do NOT pass''. If only there were a few more like him on the (D) side of the aisle.... [-sigh-].
The Germans just explained that wind and solar doesn't decrease CO2 in the atmosphere. Planting more trees would do more. Do you think that the other Washington will continue to move forward even though more seeds of doubt have been sown ? Judging by what we've seen, you betcha - they can't help themselves- the Obama Administration and Congress are in full pimping mode...
Posted by: KS on February 25, 2009 08:28 PMOh, and the grossly underestimated fiscal note of $1.7 million won't stop this train in Ways and Means.
Posted by: RedRaider2x on February 26, 2009 07:49 AMThe reason why the models don't work, and growing CO2 has no effect is that the models ignore water, which has a specific heat 40 times greater than air. Water is what traps heat in the atmosphere, and what traps heat in the oceans. CO2 amounts to almost nothing.
And that's why the Carbon Credit markets collapse. It's all a sham based on nothing. If the left ever wants to get serious about stopping the pollution oriented aspects of burning fossil fuels, then they can switch to a clean and abundant baseload power source that is Nuclear. In the meantime, the market will dictate that we continue to burn coal. It's either that, or shutting off the electricity. And that's something that even a devout socialist like the Messiah, doesn't have the balls to do.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 26, 2009 08:12 AMA "go slow" approach is a mealy mouthed incorrect statement typical of the GOP in WA. The assumption is that it's better to politically acknowledge something that doesn't exist so that you've got some clout to play with the majority on the other side of the aisle. Fine when you are talking about something debatable like spending on education, but wholly inadequate when you are subsidizing the fraud of "climate change."
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 26, 2009 08:18 AMThe more normal people among us need to articulate that the planet's temperature does change as a manner of course but mankind has little or nothing to do with it. By properly articulating climate phenomenon, the eco-wacko leftists do not have an easy path to dismiss the real truth.
Posted by: G Jiggy on February 26, 2009 10:06 AMwhen i hear "CAP"--anyone following history knows the IRA's "knee-CAPPing" methods; that's what will happen to our economy with the cap-trade scam-ola...sad, but self-inflicted
and--THEN--we'll all be on the 3-year waiting list for a knee re-do with national healthcare;
liberals/progressives--don't bitch to me when things get ugly; sad thing is, you're taking us ALL over the snow cliff with the toboggan; those with sense literally can't jump off--hope you're happy in our soon to be "collective" misery
Yeah, I have been reading the science every day for five years. I do know that there is a warming, and an element of it is caused by CO2. But the key takeaways are:
1: Warming is not bad, and especially in small degrees, and entirely natural.
2: Even though CO2 contributes, it is a matter of feedbacks and systemic contributions. Beyond an initial value, CO2 does little to increase feedback, and overall, it contributes only a tiny percentage to the total warming effect. Water is the key contributor. And that just makes sense because its specific heat is so much greater, that is where the density and heat lies. And water tends to form into large bodies like oceans, or into large vapor bodies like clouds, whereas CO2 is a gas and distributes itself uniformly like any gas.
The bottom line is that humans are not causing warming with CO2. And there is no crisis, and no reason to enact any legislation towards that end.
And frankly, I could care less about lefty trolls.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 26, 2009 06:12 PM