Virtually all countries have meanwhile agreed to the Kyoto protocol - only the United States has remained unwilling to ratify the protocol until now.
As it now seems imminent that the US will ratify Kyoto, it becomes ever more important to look at what method for reducing emission is best for a world beyond Kyoto. After all, the Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012. What is to be the primary method to be followed in order to reduce emissions beyond Kyoto? Three different methods are currently under discussion:
1. Cap and trade - The Kyoto Protocol contains a mechanism for trade in emission permits accompanied by a cap on emissions. A global system would require agreement on how permits are to be allocated.
2. Standards and regulations - Alternatively, regulations can be imposed nationally, setting ever tighter emission standards in efforts to meet national targets for reducing emission levels. Car manufacturers could pay penalties for not meeting maximum emission levels for new cars. Utilities could be forced to obtain a certain proportion of electricity from renewable sources, accompanied by mandatory net-metering and generous feed-in tariffs.
3. FeeBates - Another alternative is to impose fees on activities that produce emissions, with proceeds used to fund local rebates for clean and safe alternatives. This combination is called a FeeBate policy and it has been implemented in regard to the emissions of cars in several countries.
In my view, a FeeBate policy is the most effective way to reduce emissions, as I have discussed in earlier articles.
What should also be worked out is what should happen in case a nation fails to meet agreed targets. It seems most effective to impose tariffs on exports from such a nation, especially on products that caused many emissions. The policy would be doubly effective if the proceeds of such tariffs were used to subsidize imports or domestic production of clean and safe competing products.
Before casting your vote on one of the US presidential candidates, it's a good idea to check out what their position is on this most important issue.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14 ( 1 removed by Sam Carana )
And what bring you to that assumption Sam? Has the issue been debated by our representatives lately? Has there been a vote?
We can only pray that you are mistaken.
The adoption of the Kyoto accord will have devastating economical effects on our society and actually slow the progress to a cleaner environment.
"1. Cap and trade"
All one needs to do is to remember the flawed and corrupt U.N. Iraq food for oil program to understand that to allow the U.N. to orchestrate a program such as this will result in pollution by bribery.
2. Standards and regulations,
What effect will your penalties have on the lower income of our society Sam? How will the elderly living on a fixed income be able to pay to heat their homes and put food on the table once your penalties (taxes) are put into place?
How will that single parent struggling to get by be able to afford to get to work after your fossil fuel penalty (tax) is put into place?
We know that due to the EU's efforts to comply to the Kyoto accords there are millions of acres of tropical forests yearly being clear cut and turned into farms to produce crops to produce bio fuels, if the U.S. were to also embark on this reckless path the tropical forest acreage loss due to the Kyoto accords would more likely be in the billions.
Such reductions can be achieved without "devastating economical effects on our society". A change to clean and safe energy will create many domestic jobs and reduce imports of oil. It will save life and cost of health care. It makes a lot of sense economically and environmentally. Refusing to join in with global efforts to achieve reductions would lead to trade sanction that would have devastating economical effects on our society.
Importantly, the discussion is not just about percentages, but about the method how to achieve reductions. I'm not an advocate a cap and trade methods, biofuel, etc. Instead, I argue that a FeeBate policy works best. In essence, it levies a fee on polluting products and uses the money for rebates on competing products that are clean and safe.
Secondly, a FeeBate policy targets the problems head on. Revenues raised in an area will typically stay in the area and go directly towards solving the problems in that very area. After all, a lot of money will be raised in an area where many people, say, drive polluting cars, but a lot of rebates will also go there as a lot of people there will switch to cleaner cars.
Thirdly, rebate details can be worked out locally. A FeeBate policy is flexible enough to allow local variations in the rebates mix, as the solutions can differ from place to place. A FeeBate policy merely needs to stipulate that alternatives be clean and safe. Once the framework is in place, market mechanisms can sort out what works best where.
Furthermore, a FeeBate policy will phase itself out once the desired shift has been completed, so there's less risk that it will feed a bureaucracy that will start depending on the revenues and will perpetuate a policy that is no longer effective.
Finally, a FeeBate policy is virtually budget neutral, which makes it easy for any political party to add a greenhouse gas FeeBate policy to their political program.
Sam I at least give examples in presenting my positions, are we to believe that carbon taxes will not harm our economy just because you say so?
"Refusing to join in with global efforts to achieve reductions would lead to trade sanction that would have devastating economical effects on our society.'
And any country or group of countries doing so would risk losing an outlet for their products in the greatest consumer nation on the planet.
Your "feebate" is no different than a carbon tax and would have the same effect.
O.K. Sam I have brought up the plight of the poor and elderly several times and you remain silent. what are you going to do about the rising costs of everything when you start adding taxes? Are the poor and elderly expendable to you?
Marky,
Now that was convaluted, (the first part of your post anyway) care to clear that up? whatever you were trying to get across didn't get across.
I'm advocating a FeeBate policy in which the proceeds from fees on products that cause emissions fund rebates on better alternatives. A change to clean and safe energy will create many domestic jobs and reduce imports of oil (and the associated cost of military protection). As renewable energy is produced in greater volumes, production cost will come down substantially, resulting in a bright economic future for those who achieve this change.
Dan: "I have brought up the plight of the poor and elderly several times and you remain silent."
I've explained it every time and I'll do it here again, Dan. A greenhouse gas FeeBate policy is essentially budget neutral. Its aim is to facilitate the switch to clean and safe alternatives. Any political party can add such a policy to their program without having to give up their specific goals. If a given party believes to be helping the poor and elderly by taxing the young and the rich, it can continue to do so, while implementing the feebate policy.
Note however that perverting the feebate policy, e.g. by using the proceeds of the fees to "help the poor pay the higher energy bills", will be counter-productive, as it will not give incentives to the poor to change to clean and safe alternatives, so the poor will remain stuck with energy prices that will continue to rise, without those better alternatives being made any cheaper by the policy. A better environmental outlook is good for all of us, Dan, it's not something that only the rich or only the poor will benefit from.
This isn't what will happen with an emissions penalty regime.
"I've explained it every time and I'll do it here again, Dan. A greenhouse gas FeeBate policy is essentially budget neutral."
Yes Sam you have many times but you do no more than say it, you have never made the effort to explain it let alone prove it.
You consider yourself a policy developer yet you don't get anymore specific than beyond your desire to restrict the use of fossil fuels and the promotion of alternative energies.
Marky,
"assume in your scheme of fear that a user carbon tax"
I assume nothing, I know that when you tax one of the most widely used product (next to food) in the U.S. it will have an impact and it will have the greatest impact on the part of our society that can not afford it the poor and the elderly.
Can you show us how or why taxing one of the most widely used products in our country will not have a negative impact on our society? I mean other than just saying so?
I'll explain it once more, Dan. A FeeBate policy is essentially budget neutral, which minimizes the risk of bureaucrats becoming dependent on its revenues, while the incorporation of market mechanisms minimize the risks of corruption and bureaucratic waste. There's no need to prove that, it by definition characteristic for the policy.
The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is supported by many scientists and I see no need to repeat their work here, Dan. It is imperative to shift to better alternatives, in order to tackle global warming.
There is no need for government to prescribe mandatory levels for specific technologies. There's no need to be more specific than to insist that rebates should go to safe and clean alternatives. In some areas, there will be plenty of sun, while other areas will do better with wind or geothermal power. Yet other areas may want to import a lot of electricity from across state borders. Market mechanisms can best sort out what works best where.
What we do need to be specific about, though, is our commitment to reduce emissions and to choose the best policy framework, which in my view is a FeeBate policy.