http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/11/01/business-think-tank-slams-cap-tilts-toward-tax/ Pricing carbon efficiently and equitably Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:39:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/11/01/business-think-tank-slams-cap-tilts-toward-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-10279 James Handley Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:47:26 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/11/01/business-think-tank-slams-cap-tilts-toward-tax/#comment-10279 Thorning's last point is important:   Large, existing carbon emitters (utilities, heavy industry) would benefit from a cap & trade system, especially one that gave away emission rights to those already emitting.   It would reward past pollution by allocating the future rights in proportion to past levels.   That would disadvantage penalize new, more efficient (lower carbon-emitting) alternatives that would have to buy permits from the big polluters who got them free.   Lots of opportunity for speculative gain for doing nothing except being big and being there first.  (A bit like giving all the BLM land away to the biggest ranchers and mining companies.)  A half-measure would be to auction emission rights (under a cap) so anyone could compete and it wouldn't be a give-away.   But by far the best is to tax (and gradually increase the tax on) emissions or the equivalent.   Price stability, fairness and transparency.  Not exactly "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" but not bad. Thorning’s last point is important:  
Large, existing carbon emitters (utilities, heavy industry) would benefit from a cap & trade system, especially one that gave away emission rights to those already emitting.   It would reward past pollution by allocating the future rights in proportion to past levels.   That would disadvantage penalize new, more efficient (lower carbon-emitting) alternatives that would have to buy permits from the big polluters who got them free.   Lots of opportunity for speculative gain for doing nothing except being big and being there first.  (A bit like giving all the BLM land away to the biggest ranchers and mining companies.)  A half-measure would be to auction emission rights (under a cap) so anyone could compete and it wouldn’t be a give-away.   But by far the best is to tax (and gradually increase the tax on) emissions or the equivalent.   Price stability, fairness and transparency.  Not exactly "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" but not bad.

]]> http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/11/01/business-think-tank-slams-cap-tilts-toward-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-9839 Jurgen Hissen Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:48:38 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/11/01/business-think-tank-slams-cap-tilts-toward-tax/#comment-9839 I think there's a cap-and-trade drawback missing from your "problems with cap-and-trade" page. Seems there is no good way to do the initial allocation of emissions credits.  The choices are: 1. give credits away for free based on today's pollution levels. 2. auction credits off The first option means you're rewarding everyone who's been dragging their feet for the past decade. The second option means that all polluters will immediately need to tie up huge amounts of capital in credits (instead of putting that capital into reducing their emissions) I think there’s a cap-and-trade drawback missing from your "problems with cap-and-trade" page.
Seems there is no good way to do the initial allocation of emissions credits.  The choices are:
1. give credits away for free based on today’s pollution levels.
2. auction credits off
The first option means you’re rewarding everyone who’s been dragging their feet for the past decade.
The second option means that all polluters will immediately need to tie up huge amounts of capital in credits (instead of putting that capital into reducing their emissions)

]]>