Hey readers, here’s a question fer ya:
For those who don’t know, Second Avenue Sagas is one of the go-to blogs on issues of mass transit in NYC (and elsewhere). Today they report that the MTA is ready to go ahead with carbon trading.
I’m woefully out of the loop on environmental issues, but as far as I can tell, the underlying principle of carbon trading is to allow “green” companies to capitalize off their green-ness. That is:
a) if we were to set a carbon emissions cap, then
b) we could give an incentive for companies to stay under that cap, with the provision that
c) companies that keep their emissions under the cap can consider the difference between their emissions and the cap as a credit, which they can transfer
d) to companies that are over the cap, who would pay for the credit, and hence be allowed to emit more carbon than the cap allows.
In other words, it seems like it’s a typical market solution to a social problem (which as such should be scrutinized).
I’m unsure but I have a theory: the MTA is a company that by definition is green (i.e., is involved in mass transit operations, especially ones which have substantially lowered NYC’s carbon footprint by providing an alternative to automobiles). Couldn’t the case be made that this could provide a safe haven for (let’s just say for argument’s sake) the coal power industry to continue emitting all the greenhouse gases it wants, so long as the MTA is willing to put its carbon credits on the market?
What’s the net effect? Could some of my more enviro-focused readers help out on this?
one thing you might want to check out is the second ecosocialist manifesto, which rails against carbon trading. basically, carbon trading turns pollution into a commodity, which is really just an expansion of the market and capitalist logic that created this shit in the first place. even the wall street journal said that, apparently:
As the Wall Street Journal put it in March, 2007, emissions trading “would make money for some very large corporations, but don’t believe for a minute that this charade would do much about global warming.” The Journal called the carbon trade “old-fashioned … making money by gaming the regulatory process.”
http://www.cheatneutral.com/
Danny:
The alternative framework to cap and trade, which doesn’t involve market mysticism, is: cap, collect, and invest
We need a price mechanism – if its free then no one is going to care about it.
Cap and trade is essentially allowing pollution permits.Allow a certain “limit”, and then allow the bigger polluters to just trade for their right to pollute more.
What we really need is:
1. reductions right away
2. collect money from the polluters to the tune of the costs
3. invest in our communities
STRONG CAP: the pollution needs to stop
COLLECT: polluters have been getting subsidies and let off the hook for years. Now they need to pay.
INVEST: in vulnerable, low-income communities and communities of color, in order to lift people out of poverty and promote self-determination.
Anyway. Thats an alternative way to open up the convo on emissions.
hope that helps a bit. see you soon!
Counterspin covered the topic on this morning’s show. Might be worth listening to.