President Obama, please read this!
The energy and environmental policy that you have proposed for the U.S. is a patchwork of policies, ranging from higher fuel efficiency standards and subsidies for energy conservation and renewable energy, to "an economy-wide cap-and-trade program".
The problem is that the cap-and-trade program is not what it claims to be: it claims that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. However, a cap-and-trade program would not only be ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases, it would actually be counter-productive and lead to further pollution and environmental harm. Moreover, a cap-and-trade program would come at the detriment of other policies, the very policies that we need to implement, in order to reduce greenhouse gases.
President Obama, you have an important choice to make in the lead-up to C4, the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Instead of supporting cap-and-trade, it makes more sense to work towards an agreement for all countries to commit to each reduce greenhouse gases by a set percentage per year. Each country can then work out how best to make their reductions, leaving them a wide range of policy instruments (such as standards, taxes, fees, subsidies and rebates) to choose from, each establishing the mix that best facilitates the shifts that need to take place in their area of the world. While I am convinced that feebates will work best in many cases, areas should each decide for themselves what policy instruments they prefer. The main goal now is to support the commitment that is there around the world to steadily reduce greenhouse gases, to use this as the basis for a global agreement and to work out sanctions (such as tariffs) to back up this commitment.
Yes, we should help developing nations, but we should reconsider how we want other countries to "develop". We don't want to pay India, Pakistan and other Asian and African nations to imitate the lifestyle of "developed" countries, i.e. people traveling by car or plane to work in polluting industries, to return home to feed on a diet of meat and ice cream. Current levels of meat production alone add nearly 6.5 billion tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases every year to the atmosphere, which constitutes some 18% of the worldwide annual production of 36 billion tons. Environmentally spoken, we need to ensure that "developing" nations do NOT develop into lookalikes of what we're now.
A global cap-and-trade scheme would not lead to reductions in greenhouse gases, instead would be counter-productive and would most likely make things a lot worse, for many reasons. But first, let's get one thing straight: a cap-and-trade scheme is NOT a "market" solution.
1. The cap is a regulatory monstrosity requiring extensive administration and policing, at substantial cost and risk of fraud and failure. It's a recipe for disputes, even war, about political decisions to prohibit one what another is allowed to do.
2. A cap-and-trade scheme may claim to give markets clarity by "putting a price on pollution", but it does not set a price, it only produces "permits to pollute", while floating the price. That may give speculators, lawyers and financial advisers opportunities to enrich themselves, but it doesn't give markets clarity about the cost of resources. Even in the unlikely case that the whole world would agree on a global cap-and-trade scheme, it's likely that politicians would keep changing the price, the number and the conditions of these permits -- there would be little or no clarity for investors, instead there are bound to be privileges for some and confusion for others, which all comes at the expense of giving markets the clarity they ask, in order to plan and develop the job and investment opportunities in the clean industries that we all need.
3. Apart from cost clarity, markets need investment confidence. Markets work better with some idea where best to invest and where to create job opportunities. Permits-to-pollute effectively constitute a tax on many products. It's the stick without the carrot -- it only targets pollution and protects polluters who want to keep polluting. Markets, by contrast, don't work well in the sole prospect of death and taxes. Instead, markets prosper in a healthy environment that promises opportunities for profits, investment and appreciation of brand name and assets, i.e. the carrot.
4. Markets are not calling for opportunities to trade in permits to spoil the environment. A small group of people may call for trading in permits, typically those who would feed on the profits of such trade. Indeed, those who advocate cap-and-trade most are likely to be the same lawyers, bureaucrats, speculators and financial advisers that have brought the world into the worst global crisis since the Great Depression. These are some of the very people that earlier sought to gain commission by propagating the myth that it was in the economic interest of the U.S. to become dependent on oil imports, to keep sending borrowed money to some of the politically most volatile regions in the world, while nurturing a perceived need for a U.S. military presence in those areas. All this has come at a terrible environmental and financial cost, at the cost of much human misery and at the expense of many good job and investment opportunities in local markets for clean and safe ways to produce energy.
5. While a cap-and-trade scheme is silent about what is to happen with the proceeds of the sale of permits, there should be no surprise as to what would happen if a cap-and-trade scheme would be imposed globally. A substantial part of the proceeds will flow from the rich and most polluting nations to the poorest places in the world, such as India, Pakistan and other Asian and African nations. A global cap-and-trade scheme would only allow the rich and polluting countries to keep polluting, while the people in these poor countries would be inclined to spend the money on things like polluting cars and eating meat, the very things that cause the worst pollution. Handing over money to government bureaucrats in poor countries makes them prone to accept bribes by industrialists who seek to sell more nuclear and coal-fired power plants. It's not markets that want this. Nobody benefits from this. It's a recipe for environmental disaster, corruption, terrorism and war, all resulting from policies that were ill-conceived and doomed to fail.
Should I go on describing why a global cap-and-trade scheme wouldn't work? Let's face it, cap-and-trade is a scheme designed by polluters to keep polluting - what both people and markets want is the opposite: Both people and markets want government to stop protecting the polluters and to instead support the safe and clean solutions that we all want and need. People want to live in a healthy environment. Markets want to invest in solutions that combine prosperity with a healthy environment.
Markets do not want to give "developing" nations the proceeds of such a cap-and-trade scheme. It isn't that markets are greedy, but the truth is that a global cap-and-trade scheme would be counter-productive and only lead to more people driving polluting cars and eating meat. I suggest that, if we are to impose a form of tax anyway, then let's simply impose fees on polluting practices, while using the proceeds where they were raised, in order to create better alternatives at the very places where such alternatives are needed most. Insisting that, to be applicable for rebates, alternatives should be clean and safe, that would genuinely allow market mechanisms to sort out what works best, while optimizing consumer choice and opportunities for jobs and for investment. That is what markets want and how they work best. Such a combination of fees and rebates (FeeBates) can be self-funding and budget-neutral, thus avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and political turmoil. Nonetheless, as I said earlier, each area should be allowed to decide on their preferred mix of policies.
In conclusion, we should reject a global cap-and-trade scheme and instead work on a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases, which should be assisted by information on how best to achieve afforestation, to make and use solar cookers, build pyrolysis ovens and bury biochar, build solar concentrators and wind turbines, build desalination plants, use carbon-negative building techniques, etc. All this can be done with technologies and resources that already are locally available all around the world. Ensuring that countries have access to such information will make that they can develop without being dependent on supervision and imports from other countries. To help other countries obtain this information is as much in their interest as in our own interest.
President Obama, I plead to you, don't let polluters misinform you. Please show the kind of leadership that we all expect from you and reject a global cap-and-trade scheme -- instead, unite the world into a commitment to come together annually to set a percentage by which each country should reduce greenhouse gases.
While the premise to unite the world may sounds simple, we are aware that the challenges will be huge and exhausting. Please keep your strength in the confidence that the whole world, our children and our children's children will thank you for this!
Sam Carana
References:
Energy and the Environment
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/
UN Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, December 9 - 18, 2009
http://en.cop15.dk/
How Meat Contributes to Global Warming
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger
The Feebate Network
http://feebate.net
 | This article is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |  |
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 50 ( 1 removed by Sam Carana )
Copenhagen isn't that far from here, in fact I was considering adding it to a trip to Sweden I'll be doing in early June. Maybe I'll make plans to sneak up there in December.
My biggest worry is that cap-and-trade and the other ideas are becoming bumper stickers more than they are being thought through in a meaningful way. This is economics, and probably beyond the understanding of most people, including those who support it. I would prefer that we honestly evaluate all options rather than simply hitch our horse to the first idea that comes along. Let's get it right.
Thanks again for a great article.
You're right, David, there's only a few months time to discuss things, before most people will have fixed their position in anticipation of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. I've been invited to speak in Copenhagen (at a low-key event) and to travel there by sailing ship departing from New York in October 2009. I first need to get to New York in time, though. Many will be preparing similar schedules. Now is the time to get things discussed. We've only got a few months or so, this is the moment to get our voices heard.
I couldn't agree more.
Sam,
I haven't seen your signature on the petition to President Obama and Congress to allow more of us the "hook up" the the grid.
http://www.rallycongress.com/promote-alternative-energy/1498/tell-congress-to-enact-federal-private-citizen-net-metering-regulations/
Or a redirect just to make it easier www.pacificsunlight.net
We,ve sent out more than 100 letters so far (been out for 10 days now)
Go take a look see what you think!
Whatever US has given to some countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan etc. (don't name India) was a pure quie pro quo. These helpless countries gave their peace and social equilibrium in exchange to US dollars. This is being reflected in these countries these days. These both countries are torn apart and haunted by terrorism. Probably you might have read about ISI which was given birth by Your CIA for this area.
It was India which always resisted your aggression in this area. You tried to twist the arm of India through Pak. It is now very late when you realized in this multi polar world the necessity of India and came to it with a Nuclear Pact. India has never begged before you (Uncle) Sam.
Dear Sam please check the factual situation before writing an article on such an august forum.
With Best Regards
Senator / Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar has done the most to nurse this biofuels system in his Biochar provisions in the 07 & 08 farm bill,
http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html
Below are my current news & Links to major developments;
Cheers,
Erich J. Knight
540 289 9750
Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!
The IBI Announces Success in Having Biochar Considered as a Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Tool;
POZNAN, Poland, December 10, 2008 - The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) announces that the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has submitted a proposal to include biochar as a mitigation and adaptation technology to be considered in the post-2012-Copenhagen agenda of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A copy of the proposal is posted on the IBI website at
The International Biochar Initiative (IBI).
Modern Pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration, Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.
Charles Mann ("1491") in the Sept. National Geographic has a wonderful soils article which places Terra Preta / Biochar soils center stage.
Please put this (soil) bug in your colleague's ears. These issues need to gain traction among all the various disciplines who have an iron in this fire.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text
I also have been corresponding with Michael Pollan ( NYT Food Columnist, Author ) to do a follow up story.
Since the NGM cover reads "WHERE FOOD BEGINS" , I thought this would be right down his alley and focus more attention on Mann's work.
It's what Mann hasn't covered that I thought should interest any writer as a follow up article;
Biochar data base;
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
NASA's Dr. James Hansen Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference, placing Biochar / Land management the central technology for carbon negative energy systems.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
The many new university programs & field studies, in temperate soils; Cornell, ISU, U of H, U of GA, Virginia Tech, JMU, New Zealand and Australia.
Glomalin's role in soil tilth, fertility & basis for the soil food web in Terra Preta soils.
Given the current "Crisis" atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all?
This is a Nano technology for the soil that represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.
Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
In a recent National Public Radio interview, Michael Pollan talks about how he was approached by a Democratic party staffer about his New York Times article, The "Farmer & Chief", an open letter to the next president concerning U.S. agriculture/energy policy. The staffer wanted Pollan to summarize the article into a page or two to get it into the hands of Barack Obama. Pollan declined, saying that if he could have said everything that needed to be said in two pages, he wouldn't have written 8000 words.
Michael Pollan is well briefed about Biochar technology, but did not include it in his "Farmer & Chief" article to President Obama, (Which he did read & cited in a speech) but I'm sure Biochar will be his 8001th word to him.
Erich
540 289 9750
Total CO2 Equivalence:
Once a commercial bagged soil amendment product, every suburban household can do it,
The label can tell them of their contribution, a 40# bag = 150# CO2 = 160 bags / year to cover my personal CO2 emissions. ( 20,000 #/yr , 1/2 Average )
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html
But that is just the Carbon!
I have yet to find a total CO2 equivalent number taking consideration against some average field N2O & CH4 emissions. The New Zealand work shows 10X reductions.If biochar proves to be effective at reducing nutrient run-off from agricultural soils, then there will accordingly be a reduction in downstream N2O emissions.
This ACS study implicates soil structure as main connection to N2O soil emissions;
http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Paper41955.html
Biochar Studies at ACS Huston meeting;
578-I: http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4231.html
579-II http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4496.html
665 - III. http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4497.html
666-IV http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4498.html
Most all this work corroborates char soil dynamics we have seen so far . The soil GHG emissions work showing increased CO2 , also speculates that this CO2 has to get through the hungry plants above before becoming a GHG.
The SOM, MYC& Microbes, N2O (soil structure), CH4 , nutrient holding , Nitrogen shock, humic compound conditioning, absorbing of herbicides all pretty much what we expected to hear.
Company News & EU Certification
Below is an important hurtle that 3R AGROCARBON has overcome in certification in the EU. Given that their standards are set much higher than even organic certification in the US, this work should smooth any bureaucratic hurtles we may face.
EU Permit Authority - 4 years tests
Subject: Fwd: [biochar] Re: GOOD NEWS: EU Permit Authority - 4 years tests successfully completed
Doses: 400 kg / ha – 1000 kg / ha at different horticultural cultivars
Plant height Increase 141 % versus control
Picking yield Increase 630 % versus control
Picking fruit Increase 650 % versus control
Total yield Increase 202 % versus control
Total piece of fruit Increase 171 % versus control
Fruit weight Increase 118 % versus control
There is list of the additional beneficial effects of the 3R FORMULATED BIOCHAREU DOSSIER for permit administration and summary of the results from 4 different Authorities who executed different test programme is under construction
I suggest these independent and accredited EU relevant Authority permit field tests results will support the further development of the biochar application systems on international level, and providing case evidence, that properly made and formulated (plant and/or animal biomass based) biochars can meet the modern environmental - agricultural - human health inspection standards and norm, while supporting the knowledge based economical development.
We work further on to expand not only in the EU but in the USA as well. My Cincinnati large scale carbonization project is progressing, hopefully the first industrial scale 3R clean coal - carbon plant will be ready in 2009.
Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
HOMEPAGE 3R AGROCARBON: http://www.3ragrocarbon.com
http://www.terrenum.net
EMAIL 1: edward@terrenum.net
EMAIL 2: edward.someus@gmail.com
Also:
EcoTechnologies is planning for many collaborations ; NC State, U. of Leeds, Cardiff U. Rice U. ,JMU, U.of H. and at USDA with Dr.Jeffrey Novak who is coordinating ARS Biochar research. This Coordinated effort will speed implementation by avoiding unneeded repetition and building established work in a wide variety of soils and climates.
www.EcoTechnologies.com
Hopefully all the Biochar companies will coordinate with Dr. Jeff Novak's Jeff.Novak@ars.usda.gov soils work at ARS;
http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/people/people.htm?personid=24434
As somebody who lives in these impoverished countries I am sorry to inform you that you got most of your cap and trade info wrong. Unlike americans, the rest of the world has already been involved in cap and trade for years, and we probably have a better understanding of it.
First of all, cap and trade means that the polluters have to pay a premium, while non-polluters get a nice bonus. This levels the playing field for all those nice activities you listed at the end of your article. Second, how do you know that people in developing countries will use the proceeds to buy polluting cars and eat more meat? Africans have 3% of the carbon emissions of Americans and they eat a lot of meat - and their cars are extremely polluting. But if Africans get a choice, they will choose the less polluting option. They are not stupid, you see, just poor.
Plus, eating meat is not the problem. The problem is that the cow manure go untreated. Fortunately, the methane in the cow manure has great energy potential which is quite easy to harvest in $400 biogas drums. They are going like hotcakes over here, everybody wants free cooking gas, and the cap and trade (carbon credits we call them in the rest of the world) is exactly what we are using to finance the biogas digesters. In fact, here in Africa there are no subsidies - but carbon credits do a great job of helping to finance the green souls down here.
And since there is a more or less global market for carbon credits already, the polluters will want to buy the cheapest credits (as in any market mechanism) and right now, they are here since we have lower cost of labor, more sun, higher temperatures, cheaper land etc. etc. But when we are all cleaned up the polluters must pay higher prices - and they have to do their own cleanup. But at that later date, the scientists and entrepreneurs in the west has had a few more years to find economical ways to clean up - hell they might get a few ideas from down here. Even when Africa is carbon-neutral the US still only has bought 12% of the carbon credits they need... Africa will become the first carbon negative continent, and will continue to soak up carbon emitted from the west and east. Don´t be so afraid that your precious dollars fall in the hands of the poor - the American Farm Bill that Obama voted for is the main reason why we are poor. How can we compete with subsidized corn or cotton without even having mechanized agriculture - most farmers rely on rain solely, which has already become irregular at best and often completely lacking because of the carbon emissions from the US especially. China may just edge the US in emissions right now, but look at the historical volumes and the US reign supreme. Nobody else has more responsiblility for the decline of the African farmer. Time to pay up!
JB
Aw That's to bad Sam, your zipcode sends an email directly to your rep. Oh well we all have out priorities.
During World War II fascist regimes in Germany and Japan sought to capture oil resources beyond their borders. The Gulf wars were fought to secure oil supply. The Russian invasion of Georgia was about oil and gas. The shift away from fossil fuel will take away one reason to fight wars and thus make the whole world more peaceful, which I'm sure is what India wants too. Let's try and work out what the most effective ways are to facilitate that shift. In my view, cap-and-trade is not the best way to achieve this.
Cap-and-trade gives poor countries money. Without strings attached, this money will most likely be spent on activities that will increase global emissions. At the same time, cap-and-trade will allow people in rich countries to continue polluting. The rich will continue to pollute, because they can afford to do so, while the poor (who previously could not afford to pollute as much) will join in with polluting activities. Your suggestion that this was somehow leveling the playing field may appeal to dogmatic communists, but as far as I can see it doesn't make sense.
JB: "how do you know that people in developing countries will use the proceeds to buy polluting cars and eat more meat? ... if Africans get a choice, they will choose the less polluting option. They are not stupid, you see, just poor."
Perhaps they won't all buy cars. Some might buy more livestock. I've seen ads prompting people in western countries to donate money for goats in Africa. Such ads seem to tell people that goats were somehow good, but I question whether this is helpful for the environment.
I believe that it makes more sense to impose fees on polluting activities and to use proceeds to fund better alternatives where the polluting activities occurred. That would be the most effective way to reduce emissions. What Africa needs now, more than money, is information how to develop clean and safe ways to produce energy, to improve soil quality, to avoid open wood fires, etc. I would also prefer to see less livestock in Africa.
JB: "The problem is that the cow manure go untreated. Fortunately, the methane in the cow manure has great energy potential which is quite easy to harvest in $400 biogas drums. They are going like hotcakes over here, everybody wants free cooking gas, and the cap and trade (carbon credits we call them in the rest of the world) is exactly what we are using to finance the biogas digesters. In fact, here in Africa there are no subsidies - but carbon credits do a great job of helping to finance the green souls down here."
You're just illustrating one of the problems with a cap-and-trade scheme. It allows people in rich countries to keep polluting, while it pays people in poor countries to get more cows and produce more methane. I suggest you read more on pyrolysis and biochar if you are really interested in improving the environment. Solar concentrators can be built without the need for high tech equipment. In Africa, cow dung is all too often used as fuel in open fires, for cooking, so I suggest you also catch up on solar cookers.
"All developed countries will need to contribute to financial resources for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries via public funding and the use of carbon crediting mechanisms," the proposal says. Rich countries should commit to binding limits on their greenhouse gas emissions through 2020. They could then pay a set price for every tonne of emissions, the proposal says, or pay at rates per tonne on a global carbon market, and so not guarantee a price.
Also discussed in David's article Seeking a new global deal on climate change
As said, I would instead like to see fees of, say, 10% on fossil fuel, with proceeds used to fund local rebates on clean and safe ways to produce energy. This could be complemented by further feebates, such as on cars.
Surely, cap and trade also has a dark side - the legislators in the UNFCCC might choose to accept projects that are less than green (IMHO), such as more efficient coal plants or methane recovery from coal mines in China. Even nuclear is being discussed as having potential for carbon credits. But the technologies you mentioned, of which many we are busy implementing with carbon credits here in Africa, are the ones that the carbon buyers should be looking for. There are even several extra standards on top of carbon credits such as Gold Standard and Social Carbon which help buyers go for the good stuff.
Funny thing, captialism, it can be both good and bad. Doesn´t mean we should get rid of capitalism. Same thing with cap and trade. It doesn´t mean we should avoid capital inflows to developing countries, like you seem to suggest. It is pretty extreme that the developing nations do not know how to handle the cash so they should rather starve - while the US which has had more than abundant cash flow the last 10 years are suddenly so much smarter about using the money...
And by the way, the communists are not the ones behind cap and trade, they are all market believing economists. Look up communism on Wikipedia - it means government planned economy. Carbon credits are a market tradable commodity like gold and oranges. I can understand Bush as a climate sceptic being against Kyoto, but it is pretty hard to understand how somebody like you who seem to be supporting cleantech can be against it.
JB
I would also like to address your concern that the rich nations can just continue to pollute simply by buying carbon credits. This is simply wrong. The EU has a cap on how much credits can be bought from CDM (developing countries) - I think it is 25%. So the majority of cleaning still has to happen at home.
Your attempt at McCarthying cap and trade seem slightly amusing from here - while Bush was busy denying climate change the EU and Japan already solved most of the downsides (at least the ones you describe above). Too bad you made up your mind about carbon credits before you knew the whole story... Carbon credits are being used to finance the poor so that they can switch from cow dung and deforesting to using solar cookers. The issue is not cap and trade or not, this discussion was had 10 years ago. The discussion now is to help minimize red tape so that smaller scale projects can be started. Right now it costs about $100.000 to register a project, meaning only industrial scale projects can afford to start up. The family and village based projects are the ones we need to support, as they give incredible positive side effects for human health, wildlife and nature.
An example of carbon credits being used DIRECTLY for such projects: www.kyoto-energy.com
As in the AA, first step is admitting the problem. You already did that by supporting cleantech technologies. The next step is to realize and admit that carbon credits and microfinance are the only mechanisms that exist to make this happen for the 3 billion people that live in the stone age. Foreign aid has done zilch to solve the problem after billions spent over the last 50 years, in fact it has just made things worse.
There are still 1.6 million deaths from indoor smoke pollution and 10 million deaths from unclean drinking water. Add spinal injury from carrying firewood, rape, landmine injuries and enormous time waste, as well as deforestation, land slides and so on and we see what the REAL energy crisis is. As I said before, it is time for the polluters of the west to pay up. By paying for their sins against the global environment they get to help solve the very local ones, completely for free.
JB
Good idea - let us stop orphans from drinking nutricious goat milk instead of admitting that cap and trade can finance small biogas digesters to completely eliminate the animal emissions...
On this subject, my friend, you are still an amateur - despite your eloquence...
JB
You are confusing cap-and-trade with offset policies. What the EU proposes is to end offset policy and to instead impose cap-and-trade. As Reuters reports: [The EU proposal calls] for a gradual phasing out of carbon offsetting, which allows rich nations to lay off their greenhouse gas emisisons by paying for cuts in developing countries. The EU is the world's biggest buyer of carbon offsets, and last month agreed climate targets which allowed EU states and companies to offset up to 3 billion tonnes of their greenhouse gas emissions from 2008-2020. Carbon offsetting allows developing countries, which at present face no binding climate targets, to earn money in return for curbing greenhouse gases. The EU wants to phase out that option for "advanced developing countries", which the paper said should face binding caps instead.
J Bo. You're the first person I have seen, other than industry personnel and politicians (assuming you are neither), who has a postive take on cap-and-trade (or carbon credits). You make some interesting comments that lead me to be a bit less skeptical about them, seeing that the Obama administration seems to be moving in that direction.
However, I have read that that system has had little effect in Europe toward reducing CO2 emissions. Sam's critique of the cap-and-trade system, IMHO, is well thought out, and from my perspective, accurate. I would favor the feebate policy he proposes because of its simplicity and directness.
But since the two of you know more about it than I do, I'd be interested in your further comments re: the specific points that Sam has asserted in his letter to Obama (1 through 5).
I have discussed issues re: climate change for some time, and I can assure you that he is very serious about decreasing emissions. I don't know of anyone more sincere in this effort. I also have an interest in your perspective, since you say you live "...in these impoverished countries."
A debate on issues is what you will find from Sam. He is not given to personal insults, and does not generally entertain them - at least, from my acquaintance with him.
So, I look forward to your responses on the issue. This IS where the appropriate debate re: climate change should be taking place, after all.
Any possibility of your letter actually being seen by Obama? Have you submitted it to the NY Times or Washington Post? Would this help?
It seems that you are now also confusing cap-and-trade with money that western countries give in the form of humanitarian aid and for projects in developing countries, such as through the World Bank. Yes, I strongly support safe and clean technology, all over the world, and no, that doesn't include nuclear power, "clean coal" and capture of methane in coal mines. Africa has many old and polluting cars, which could be converted to electric cars, powered by the abundance of solar energy in Africa. Solar energy could power desalination plants. More solar energy could make Africa an exporter of electricity to Europe, as I described in several of my articles and comments. Similarly, producing biochar could make soil more fertile and reverse desertification and land erosion. I do want to see the World Bank support such projects. I also would like to see a focus on low tech, to avoid countries becoming dependent on imports and supervision from abroad. But let's get back to cap-and-trade. The primary goal of cap-and-trade is not social justice. Neither is it primarily a humanitarian policy. Nor is its primary goal is to assist development in developing nations. Cap-and-trade is presented as the dominant way to reduce greenhouse gases. My point is that cap-and-trade is not the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gases and that such a proposed dominance of cap-and-trade would come at the expense of better ways to reduce greenhouse gases.
And thanks, Steve, for adding for mentioning major newspapers and the White House. Several people have emailed me privately that they have submitted text from and links to this article, and I encourage others to do the same. Let's all work to get the most effective and most appropriate policies implemented to reduce greenhouse gases all around the world.
Now you're talking about justice and compensation. There have been many court cases in the past on environmental damage inflicted by companies in third world countries. In many cases, courts have ordered companies to pay compensation and to clean up the mess. I strongly support this, not only from a point of social justice, but also to set an example, to avoid this happening again in future.
However, this is not the primary goal of what cap-and-trade claims to achieve. Cap-and-trade claims to achieve reductions in greenhouse gases. Implementation of cap-and-trade would actually protect polluters by selling them permits to pollute, thus making it more difficult, if not impossible, for courts to convict polluters for inflicting harm. That's why so many polluters support the cap-and-trade scheme. It would legitimize their practices, while creating such an administrative and political monstrosity that they wouldn't have to reduce their polluting practices for decades to come.
Most herd animals will trample soil and remove vegetation, and erosion by wind and rain then creates gaps in plant cover, gradually destroying more and more forest. Goats are particularly destructive, removing all vegetation - root and all - including the woody plants that help stabilize soil, which then becomes subjected to erosion and salinity, in the absence of trees and natural vegetation to keep soil together and keep groundwater levels low. Too much African and Amazon tropical rainforest has been transformed into pasture for grazing animals and into farmland to grow crops to feed livestock. This results in a loss of biodiversity and in monocultures that become increasingly dependent on irrigation and the use of insecticides, herbicides and fertilizers. At the time of its release, the UN report Livestock's Long Shadow estimated that livestock production occupied 70% of agricultural land, or 30% of the land surface of the planet. Things have probably become worse since and all this comes at the expense of forests and farms that have to grow food to feed a growing world population.
Sadly, some charitable organizations are still appealing to sin and guilt, suggesting that people in western countries could buy off feeling guilty for poverty by donating goats to Africa. Instead, as said, I would prefer to see less livestock in Africa.
I posted the link to your letter on the WH "comment" site. Good luck.
So we completely agree on the problems of the world and that the polluters should be penalized and the green projects should be awarded, creating a more level playing field.
Carbon credits have their faults but they do work for the kind of projects we are talking about. There is nothing else on the near horizon that can replace it, nothing else has been tried. So the discussions now around the world are about simplifying the carbon trade to allow smaller players to enter. It is also about getting adaptation funds started to compensate those who are already suffering from climate change. Rocking the boat now about whether cap and trade/carbon credits should be used at all will set the whole process back another 8 years. Remember that the entire world except the US are involved with cap and trade, it is soon a $100BN business. If it doesn´t do enough, set tighter targets. The initial targets (1990 levels) are of course not going to solve the problem.
If you don´t like goats, then you can always donate a chicken (everybody likes chicken). :-)
Animals are important to keep if you want to stay alive, and they are important mix with agriculture due to fertilizer, biogas etc. Cows and goats can be kept in compounds and feed can be brought to them. That also makes collection of manure for biogas simpler.
You suggested to use the World Bank instead of carbon credits - that must be a joke. World Bank lends to countries only and the leaders of these countries know how to eat that up or give it to their cronies. Government and NGOs DO NOT WORK IN AFRICA. Carbon credits go directly to green projects with a surprising lack of corruption.
Your legal argument is typically American - let us sue the bastards. But they did not break any laws - it has been legal to pollute. For the poor farmers in Africa that have lost their rain due to pollution by coal power plants in the US to actually win that lawsuit, is one of the biggest longshots I have heart of in quite some time.
JB
Yes, that's the basic idea, though I don't think a "level playing field" is what is needed. Actually, renewable energy and efficiency technologies should be given priority - at the expense of fossils/nuclear. Be that as it may, however, the debate is how best to achieve that. As an alternative to cap-and-trade strategies, Sam has suggested "feebates", in which a surcharge is placed on polluting products and services, which is then used directly to discount products and services that promote renewable/efficiency. It is direct and simple, with little need for a new bureaucracy, loopholes, etc. What are your objections to that, if any?
I agree with Steve. The "level playing field" is an inappropriate term. We need policies that reduce greenhouse gases, we shouldn't play games.
J Bo: "Carbon credits have their faults but they do work for the kind of projects we are talking about. There is nothing else on the near horizon that can replace it, ..."
Cap-and-trade is not the same as carbon credits, carbon offset, compensation of victims of climate change, free trade, "fair trade", climate change mitigation and adaption funds, WTO agreements, World Bank loans, foreign aid, etc. Furthermore, there are numerous different ways of implementing cap-and-trade proposals, not to mention sanctions against those who don't comply. Many of the policies implemented by Europe over the years have failed to reduce greenhouse gases. I didn't suggest to use the World Bank instead. Instead, I said that we need to implement policies that are most effective in reducing greenhouse gases. Cap-and-trade isn't effective, it's in many respects counter-productive.
Steven Chu said that while President Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders had endorsed a so-called cap-and-trade system to control global warming pollutants, there were alternatives that could emerge, including a tax on carbon emissions or a modified version of cap-and-trade. [source]
You want environmental improvements, you help nations grow their economies. Only nations like Europe which are slowly declining or younger industrialized powers like the US/Canada/Japan/Korea can afford to divert so much GDP for environmental improvements. And we may have just limited our ability to do so drastically with a falling GDP and rising deficit.
I agree with Sam also, better to help people directly than give countries cash that may not be well spent. A discount on products and help in development could ensue but I would give practical help versus cash, to avoid corruption and waste.
There are private non profit companies who have invested in Africa to help teach people new farming methods and provide them with all they need.
It should have happened years ago, giving them to tools to help themselves.
Foreign aid would be an interesting topic for another article, but let's focus here on getting the best policies to reduce greenhouse gases. For now, it should suffice to conclude that when leaders in developing countries receive large amounts of money without strings attached, they will become prone to corruption and large parts of the money will be wasted and used in activities that will be counter-productive to the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases.