tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post2801484450400924624..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Carbon tax or cap and trade?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-12205185190804952282009-12-11T00:39:12.758-05:002009-12-11T00:39:12.758-05:00"By the way, I haven't seen anybody chall...<i>"By the way, I haven't seen anybody challenging what I believe is a fundamental presumption under cap and trade as is, namely that the national shares of allowed CO2 emissions are to be allocated to the emitters only. (Am I right that this is the presumption?) I'd expect to hear left-wing economists denouncing this as sheer theft. The rights of ownership over the atmosphere are assumed to belong exclusively to the main CO2 emitters? </i>?<br /><br />I have raised this issue repeatedly over the last 10 years on Tasmanian forums. In this state the government has organised for the general public to fund the acquisition of forested land by a handful of companies. (They network with Murdoch and Fairfax media corporations, btw). Then they've proceeded to clearfell the forests and replace them with tree monocultures. In the process they've napalmed the biomass they don't want, creating enormous fires by the hundreds across the state every year.<br /><br />These same forest-rape ops now want carbon credits for their trees and have been allowed a free 'permit' to burn biomass at will.<br /><br />We can't save our living environment if we can't address the corruption.<br /><br />Saving the earth requires <b>non</b>-material goals/<b>non</b>-material achievements.Myrtle Blackwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07427043367624101075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-51645854256093896002009-12-09T15:59:24.338-05:002009-12-09T15:59:24.338-05:00I think an important issue here that has long been...I think an important issue here that has long been discussed but has somewhat disappeared in the shuffle is that raised all the way back in 1974 by Martin Weitzman in his "Prices and Quantities" paper. This is, on which side is their greater risk/uncertainty, benefits or costs? So, if we are in greater danger of some runaway temperature increase, then we are better off guaranteeing some quantity limit. That says, go cap and trade. If we are in more danger of a runaway cost of fixing the mess, then tax. I tend to worry more about the former myself.<br /><br />There is also a way of hybridizing a bit. This is to have triggers in for either system, so that if a runaway does happen in the wrong direction, just halt it at a certain point and let things go, although that is not a good situation to get into.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-37922598828148375802009-12-09T14:10:37.964-05:002009-12-09T14:10:37.964-05:00Halleluhya, we finally got a post from Julio.
Dud...Halleluhya, we finally got a post from Julio.<br /><br />Dude, you belong here, at least for the time being. Michael didn't go solo until the Jackson 5 had already made it.MaxSpeakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08594964334301228571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-20095095737116360532009-12-09T13:13:44.356-05:002009-12-09T13:13:44.356-05:00Hi Julio, see http://www.storyofcapandtrade.org fo...Hi Julio, see http://www.storyofcapandtrade.org for the crit you seek of cap-and-giveaway... but many of us involved in this sort of crit are also concerned about a utopian tendency to 'solve' the problem with per capita trading rights. See work by Larry Lohmann, for example, especially at http://www.durbanclimatejustice.org/Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04356665444788450615noreply@blogger.com