Ok, unless someone tells me why this is insane and can't possibly work, I'm going to start an anti-global warming campaign based on the following principles:
Tuesday 31 March 2009
6 comments:
-
Devil's Advocate said...
-
OK, I'll bite.
"The carbon tax need to be global, in order to prevent industries moving to non-signatory countries, which tends to discourage all action."
Who's going to enforce the tax? The UN can't even extract parking fines from its members.
"Countries only pay it after exceeding their per capita based allowance. This gives the large population developing countries like China and India an equalising advantage - which corrects for historical emissions, dominated by the developed countries. It also keeps genuinely low emission countries unburdened."
Biggest problem, right there. The BULK of the projected CO2 emission over the next century will come from the industrialisation of China and India. In the absence of massive technological advances - which cannot be assumed - you cannot achieve any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions without retarding the economic growth of China and India, alongside many other nations.
"Funds administered by an international climate body (ICB) which spends it on carbon remission programs based on the sole criteria of where net global emissions can be best reduced."
And to whom would this ICB report? A huge slush fund would be created by taxing everyone, but particularly wealthy countries to start off, and it would be administered on an objective basis? Have you ever seen the UN in action?
"All emission-saving technological advances are licenced under the ICB, and supplied free or at cost."
What if I invent cold fusion? Do I get to negotiate the price I receive for my intellectual capital, or do I get shafted by the guys with black helicopters? Does this change my incentive to create new technologies in the first place?
Fyodor -
31 March 2009 at 09:44
-
declank said...
-
Great idea Lefty E. I'm broadly supportive, however note:
1) The underlying politics is the same regardless of economic instrument
2) Yes, but the pro-capntraders say exactly the same for their instrument of choice
3) see above
4) That's roughly the idea behind the UNFCCC. cf. critiques on the right from David Victor and left from Larry Lohmann
5) This roughly describes the CDM - an instrument of such ridiculous complexity as to render it incomprehensible to all but those who've followed it from the beginning
6) Oh well. There goes the whole basis of Germany's Feed-in tariff (ie. costly economic restructuring on the assumption that they will sell their PV expertise to developing countries later)
Note that taxes are financial instruments administered by Treasuries. Tradeable permits are administered by environmental regulators so you 'll need to deal with some turf issues for this to work. Your #1 target in the US is Eileen Claussen of PEW. Knock her off along with Robert Stavins and the whole of EDF and a carbon tax will have far fewer enemies (j/k) :) -
31 March 2009 at 09:45
-
declank said...
-
obviously crossed with Fyodor....
-
31 March 2009 at 09:46
-
Lefty E said...
-
Thanks Guys - I wanna thorough road-testing before I start campaigning!
Im no expert on these things, but we need non-experts. My essential view is this: if we leave this to political OR scientists - nothing wil happen. There's got to be mass campaigns driving action, or it will all get loss.
Suffice to say, you guys have made some telling points which Ill be factoring into my pricing structure - as it were.
Im busy the noo- but a couple of starters: Fy, yes, UN = poor track record, though I would seriously advance the view that multinational treaties have fared considerably better (eg LAw of the Sea treaty). Im proposing that as the mechanism. You just tend to get fewer sovereignty issues when sovereign nations sign on - than with UN based schemes. Id also locate the body in Asia - enough of Geneva and NY. Thats another problem with UN - a lot of Asian/ African states see it as Europe and Neo-Europe (America).
Both of you: yes point 6 (Intellectual Property) needs a tweak. Perhaps dual licensing a la Indian pharma
DK- Ill have more to ask you once you explain what UNFCCC and CDM are!
Cheers
LE -
31 March 2009 at 11:16
-
Anonymous said...
-
Interesting proposal. My understanding is it could be thought of as a hybrid global cap-and-trade approach with an emissions cap determined in a strictly per-capita manner, and excess emissions attracting the tax. Another approach would be a price floor, where emissions are allocated, but countries also pay the tax.
I have my doubts as to whether the best way to set the price would be for it to be based on the lowest common denominator agreement -- if 95% of countries would commit to $20, and 100% would commit to $10, I'd go for $20.
It is difficult to account for all emissions associated with land use, so instead of having that covered, some of the funds raised could be used for emissions reductions. Funds could also be used for adaptation assistance for poor countries, but technology R&D is also important.
Finally, when setting a carbon tax, as well as setting the price, you need to also specify a percentage rate that it will increase if countries do not later agree on a higher price. -
3 June 2009 at 20:15
-
bathmate said...
-
Everything looks good in your posting.
That will be necessary for all. Thanks for your posting.
Bathmate -
25 December 2009 at 03:54
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Comments/ modifications/ jokes at my expense welcome.