California Cap and Trade

[doodle]

California pushes forward towards implementing a cap and trade system in the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/scien ... ml?hp&_r=0

Strike me down if I'm wrong, but isn't creating a profit oriented market that gives incentive to creating more efficient and less polluting industry the ultimate libertarian solution to the issue of negative externalities? If the air we breathe and the water we drink must be consumed by all, but can be polluted freely by a few without cost it seems that some small group of people are getting away with a free lunch. This seems to be part of the the argument that the free market conservatives in the Nixon and Reagan administrations came up with when they hatched this system that is so vehemently bashed by their own party today.

[Benko]

This assumes:

--Global warming is real
--global warming is manmade
--people would be better off if the earth warmed less.

which many do not believe.

[doodle]

Global warming is the topic for another discussion. I don't want to get my blood pressure up on this fine Sunday morning though so I'm gonna skip over it. Find me one legitimate scientific study that outrightly denies global warming though....just one.... and we'll talk.  Even scientists whose research is funded by Koch brothers are now admitting AGW is undeniable.

Pollution goes farther than just CO2 emissions. If my hypothetical prize winning begonias are killed by acid rain or my son suffers asthmatic attacks from air pollution would anyone argue that I have no legal recourse?

[Tyler]

Saw this recently and found it interesting.  Incentives cut both ways.

Incentive to Slow Climate Change Drives Output of Harmful Gases - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world ... wanted=all

[KevinW]

Strike me down if I'm wrong, but isn't creating a profit oriented market that gives incentive to creating more efficient and less polluting industry the ultimate libertarian solution to the issue of negative externalities?

Yes.

IMO cap & trade addresses the respiration side of the equation. That's a good thing but there's still the carbon fixation side that needs to be dealt with. If everyone cooperates and reduces carbon production but we kill all the vegetation then we still have a big problem.

If I were king, my solution would be a system of anti-carbon vouchers awarded to anyone with significant vegetated land. So e.g. a timber forest or wheat farm, or even a suburban household with a big yard, could sell these anti-vouchers to be compensated for the carbon fixation service they are providing to the community.

[clacy]

No, it's clearly not a very libertarian solution.  It seems like it's almost the exact opposite.  If Cali wants to set up their won system, that is fine by me.  That is their right as a state.  It will just exacerbate the exodus of businesses from the state however.

[MachineGhost]

Strike me down if I'm wrong, but isn't creating a profit oriented market that gives incentive to creating more efficient and less polluting industry the ultimate libertarian solution to the issue of negative externalities? If the air we breathe and the water we drink must be consumed by all, but can be polluted freely by a few without cost it seems that some small group of people are getting away with a free lunch. This seems to be part of the the argument that the free market conservatives in the Nixon and Reagan administrations came up with when they hatched this system that is so vehemently bashed by their own party today.

Yes, this is part of the market-based incentives revolution that Thatcherism & Reaganism wrought on the intelligentsia.  It sure beats a carbon tax and it should please everyone, whether or not they believe global warming is arthropogenic.  But most conservatives are hypocritical ideaologues, not pragmatists.  Can't win 'em all!

I'm sure Al Gore will profit handsomely with all of his carbon sequestrian credits.

[Tyler]

The main problem I personally have with carbon trading schemes is that best case, even if you 100% believe that reducing manmade CO2 will have a long-term impact on climate, it is impossible to measure the impact of your system in real time.  15 years after the Kyoto Protocol was signed, no one can tell me if it made one iota of difference to global mean temperatures relative to other natural causes of climate change.

I'd rather take that money and effort and spend it on things that can measurably improve the planet immediately. Like reducing industrial waste, increasing access to clean water, and improving air quality in the major cities.  

[FarmerD]

The main problem I personally have with carbon trading schemes is that best case, even if you 100% believe that reducing manmade CO2 will have a long-term impact on climate, it is impossible to measure the impact of your system in real time.  15 years after the Kyoto Protocol was signed, no one can tell me if it made one iota of difference to global mean temperatures relative to other natural causes of climate change.

I'd rather take that money and effort and spend it on things that can measurably improve the planet immediately. Like reducing industrial waste, increasing access to clean water, and improving air quality in the major cities.  

That sounds like something Bjorn Lomborg is saying.  Frankly it makes sense to me.