4 ms·

Is there a good reason we can't implement the same system for other types of emissions, such as, say, CO2?

by j2kun 10y ago

Alex3917 10y ago
There's no reason it can't be used to fix climate change, and in fact cap & trade is the only type of law that's ever actually fixed any air pollution problem in real life. But for various reasons congress is preventing cap & trade from getting implemented at the federal level. And while Hillary Clinton supports a carbon tax, this doesn't actually impose any legally binding cap on carbon pollution, nor does it incentivize the entrepreneurs who are able to invent new technologies to get the biggest reductions for the least money. One place it is working though is with fisheries. Today the majority of US commercial fisheries are managed using cap & trade (called 'catch shares'), and the work is being done to get 70% of the world's commercial fisheries managed this way be 2020: https://www.edf.org/oceans/how-turn-around-overfishing-crisis https://www.edf.org/oceans/how-turn-around-overfishing-crisi...
- skybrian 10y ago
  It seems like either a carbon tax or cap-and-trade would spur innovation. Why do you think one would spur more innovation that than the other?
  - b34r 10y ago
    A tax is simply a deterrent, where c&t is an opportunity to make a boatload of money selling your credits to a carbon hog while simultaneously improving the state of the art for co2 emission reduction to free up more credits to be sold/bartered.
    - skybrian 10y ago
      A tax provides an incentive to make money too, because it's an expense that businesses can optimize. Businesses that are better at cutting carbon output either become more profitable or gain market share (through lower prices than their competitors). It's also an opportunity for businesses that sell equipment to reduce carbon output.
BurningFrog 10y ago
Almost all economists agree that a CO₂ tax is the best way to minimise those emissions. According to something I read that seemed credible (I know...), this is politically impossible to get through congress without exempting most major CO₂ producers.
- dTal 10y ago
  "Too big to regulate." Scary stuff.

Is there a good reason we can't implement the same system for other types of emissions, such as, say, CO2?

by j2kun 10y ago

Is there a good reason we can't implement the same system for other types of emissions, such as, say, CO2?

There's no reason it can't be used to fix climate change, and in fact cap & trade is the only type of law that's ever actually fixed any air pollution problem in real life. But for various reasons congress is preventing cap & trade from getting implemented at the federal level. And while Hillary Clinton supports a carbon tax, this doesn't actually impose any legally binding cap on carbon pollution, nor does it incentivize the entrepreneurs who are able to invent new technologies to get the biggest reductions for the least money. One place it is working though is with fisheries. Today the majority of US commercial fisheries are managed using cap & trade (called 'catch shares'), and the work is being done to get 70% of the world's commercial fisheries managed this way be 2020: https://www.edf.org/oceans/how-turn-around-overfishing-crisis https://www.edf.org/oceans/how-turn-around-overfishing-crisi...

skybrian 10y ago
It seems like either a carbon tax or cap-and-trade would spur innovation. Why do you think one would spur more innovation that than the other?
- b34r 10y ago
  A tax is simply a deterrent, where c&t is an opportunity to make a boatload of money selling your credits to a carbon hog while simultaneously improving the state of the art for co2 emission reduction to free up more credits to be sold/bartered.
  - skybrian 10y ago
    A tax provides an incentive to make money too, because it's an expense that businesses can optimize. Businesses that are better at cutting carbon output either become more profitable or gain market share (through lower prices than their competitors). It's also an opportunity for businesses that sell equipment to reduce carbon output.

BurningFrog 10y ago

Almost all economists agree that a CO₂ tax is the best way to minimise those emissions. According to something I read that seemed credible (I know...), this is politically impossible to get through congress without exempting most major CO₂ producers.

dTal 10y ago
"Too big to regulate." Scary stuff.