Read the proposals for changes to U.S. energy policy and it's all cap and trade centric (here's Rep. Markey's iCAP). There are problems with Cap and Trade; for example, it's needlessly complex and Europe has had issues including 'what should a ton of CO2 cost?' A few Solve4Biggies entries on cap and trade problems:
"Just as Canada is set to launch a domestic carbon emissions trading scheme in a bid to curb its rising greenhouse gas emissions, a number of issues have surfaced, casting doubt on the country's plans.
Last year, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada has no chance of meeting commitments under the Protocol, which called for the country to trim emissions by 6 percent. One reason for this is the growing emissions coming from oil-rich Alberta's energy sector.
'Turning the Corner', a plan released by the Canadian government in April 2007, set intensity-based targets of a 20 percent reduction on 2006 levels by 2020. Intensity-based targets mean emissions cuts are measured against units of economic output rather than in absolute terms, so a rapid rise in economic activity could lead to an absolute increase in emissions.
Canada's trading scheme will include trade in four different types of carbon credits, Hull said. Along with the normal surplus credits, some 15 million early-action credits will be awarded to companies that have cut emissions significantly before the start of the trading in 2010.
Traders welcomed the move, but noted the issues still plaguing the country's proposed emissions trading framework. 'Canada's plan is called Turning the Corner, but it seems to me there are a number of other corners following this one,' one London-based emissions trader told Reuters at the conference."
^ ^ ^ ^
Cap and trade is political cover for our elected representatives and won't do what needed nearly as well as a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy.
I agree that a tax on GHG emissions makes more sense than any of the Cap and Trade systems being proposed. But the question asked 'what should a ton of CO2 cost?' applies to either a carbon tax or C&T.
And I think the only practical 'answer' is the same for either since no one knows. (The 'cost' of a ton of CO2 is much less knowable than the 'cost' of converting the spent fuel rods from a first pass into additional nuclear fuel,for example
So how to deal with the cost of CO2 or the tax on it? My answer: start small but with a built in annual increase until the overall measured CO2 level in the atmosphere drops to a level considered to be "safe"- probably the pre-Industrial Revolution level of around 300 ppm. If that sounds radical, well nothing less will likely reverse the changes in climate that we are beginning to see now. Reply to this
Leave a comment
Copyright . http://solve4biggies.com. All rights reserved.
