For more about Citizens Climate Lobby, see:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
And their 'Laser Talks Home Page:'
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/
Of particular interest economically is the REMI study:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-general-findings/
And (for my next post), their proposal for dealing with other countries:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/border-tax-adjustment/
A first step toward adopting a world-wide solution to climate issues that is market-based.
Notably, for believers in true market-based solutions, the CCL approach would eliminate all subsidies, for both fossil fuels and renewables.
ReplyDeletehttps://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/subsidies/
There are alternatives to fee-and-dividend, such as cap-and-dividend (distinct from cap-and-trade), where rather than set an escalating fee, we have a limited number of permits which (like bandwidth in the radio spectrum) are auctioned, with the number of permits decreased from year to year.
ReplyDeleteThe important thing, however, for any scheme is that the approach be simple and straightforward, and not be complicated by political considerations.
This is the area in which cap-and-trade fails. Even if cap-and-trade worked as well technically (which it does not, setting on a floor on emissions), offsets and other complicated, hard to measure aspects of the approach provide loop holes for cheating, akin to the loop holes in federal tax law (tax reform is a topic for a different day).
What we need (from a libertarian perspective) is less government/less politics and a fee (or premium) based on risk and potential consequence. An approach that lets markets work for us. Anything else will become the by-product of lobby groups in Washington, a dark prospect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_dividend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
For further discussion of whether (and how well) the CCL approach would work:
ReplyDeletehttp://climatecolab.org:18081/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300404/planId/2802
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/administrative-cost/
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-general-findings/
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-not-perfect/
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2014/10/05/ecosocialists-debate-hansens-fee-and-dividend-plan/
http://www.carbontax.org/services/supporters/conservatives/
Its effect on jobs:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-job-results/
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/jobs-fossil-fuels-vs-renewables/
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20150225/keystone-veto-x2014-you-want-jobs-pass-carbon-fee-and-dividend-guest-commentary
And its effect on different population groups:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/carbon-fee-farmers/
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/rural-voters-benefit-from-fee-and-dividend/
Ironically, many rural voters (who are least likely to acknowledge climate change) would benefit most. A useful message when campaigning in western Iowa.