Comments on: Emissions Caps as (Social) Floors

By: Sacha

Sacha — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 06:37:28 +0000

dk, I really don’t understand what you mean. Robert’s comments make a whole lot of sense to me.

By: dk.au

dk.au — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:05:56 +0000

Robert, I suppose where we disagree is that people never do just ‘act as individuals on moral grounds’. Social scientists have long argued – and marketers long understood – that social life is understood comparatively. Without reference to peers, you can’t live ‘normally’. This is not just a point of abstract theory (structure v. agency etc), but has very real consequences for the kinds of calculation that economic policy makers see as being possible and desirable.

The irony for me is that economists are always keen to discuss negative externalities in the most dry, abstract, objective language as possible. But as soon the discussion switches to the benefits of innovation they’re straight up to the pulpit, arms waving.

By: Peterc

Peterc — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:52:35 +0000

We need to avoid false dichotomies.

It is perfectly valid and necessary for individuals to do everything within their desire and span of control to reduce carbon emissions.

The same applies to governments – state and federal, and industry. The problem with the CPRS is that it won’t reduce emissions as far as I can tell earlier than 2015, maybe not even then. So we need low targets (cap), on free permits and no exemptions or tax offets (e.g fuel rebate).

Or we need another approach entirely – truly based on science, free from political interference and industry influence

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:02:04 +0000

Chris: thanks for the clarification, and we are indeed close to agreement.

I suppose I just think that acting as an individual on moral grounds, while appropriate (I buy green power, ride to work, and buy high-quality offsets when I take plane flights), simply won’t make a significant dent in the problem.

Let’s see what the government produces…

By: Chris (a different one)

Chris (a different one) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:40:59 +0000

richard – even if the scheme that you suggest was introduced, what would stop the government lowering the targets such that we’re back in the same place? Isn’t the government choosing the targets with a specific impact on industry in mind?

By: richard

richard — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:07:39 +0000

I hope you can see how to close to agreeing with each other we are Robert. My frustration with the CPRS is solely a function of the likelihood that the target will be set without reference to the science of the problem.

To be clear, if the target was about right, i would not be at all concerned about the fact that voluntary abatement just substituted for othr action. But if the target is set too low, and voluntary action does not add to emission abatement, we are literally locking ourselves into failure.

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:29:05 +0000

Under the CPRS any energy efficency savings implemented by households simply frees up additional permits for polluters…

And that’s a feature, not a bug.

Discouraging people from making high-cost, low-return carbon reduction investments, and encoruaging low-cost, high-return carbon reduction investments, makes us all better off.

By: harley

harley — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:31:50 +0000

Tax and trade. Bring it on!
I just want a Carbon Tax figure that is not out there in the air – I want a real figure – I have a business model that will soak up heap and heaps of Carbon and provide a range of other social and environmental benefits but I need a figure to go to my bank with. I can’t create this new triple bottom line business wihout a concrete figure.
I’ve done my homework. BTW at $20 per tonne of CO2 I have a borderline business model with some additional environmental and social benefits – if it hits $30 per tonne CO2 oh I can ramp up those other benefits big time and take this nationwide into heaps of struggling communities and ecosystems. And this model will work even better if the farming sector is brought into the equations rather than the present idea of excluding it.

By: richard

richard — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:45:57 +0000

thanks Robert

I dont actually think that enthusing households is an end in itself, in fact, in terms of those who have spent the last decade worrying about cliamte change i think i have been pretty loud and proud about the need to implement good policy and stop worryinng. My sudden interest in voluntary action is based on two related problems:

1) It is increasingly obvious that the government is not going to set an emissions quota for the ETS that is consistent with the scientific foundation of the problem. ie, government action alone means that we will fail

2) To make matters worse, the CPRS in its current design, ACTIVELY PREVENTS households or small businesses from adding to the impact of the half hearted targets in the CPRS. That is, and this is the central point of our paper, under the CPRS any energy efficency savings implemented by households simply frees up additional permits for polluters…the CPRS is better understood as a carbon pollution allocation scheme, not a carbon pollution reduction scheme. There is no need to design the CPRS in such a way that additional household action couldn’t add to the emission reductions rather than just allowing others to increase their pollution.

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:48:13 +0000

Richard: the trouble I have with your philosophical approach is that you seem to think enthusing householders is an end in itself.

From my perspective, that is a means, not an end, and if alternative means are more efficient well and good.