The pols sit still for the message
Maybe there's hope after all.
Via Yahoo news (h/t: The Oil Drum) comes word that Peter Barnes, founder of Working Assets Long Distance, made a presentation on greenhouse-gas abatement to the Vermont legislature.
That the legislature received the presentation is itself progress, but the specifics are noteworthy:
- A statewide carbon cap, implemented via a systm of tradeable permits.
- The permits would not be given to emitters, but sold at auction.
- The proceeds from the auction would be returned to taxpayers or used to finance conservation and efficiency programs.
Regular readers will note a strong similarity to the measures I've been advocating. The only real difference is that the permits would be sold at auction, so the economic benefit of savings fluctuates with the market. This could lead to slumps in the efficiency industry during economic contractions, with a consequent reduction or halt in improvements. On the flip side, the permit auction eliminates the protected status of entrenched industry and the net effect on consumers would be small and even positive for low emitters. It amounts to a tax on "bads", not "goods"; on the whole, it's an excellent idea.
The legislators are not convinced. State Rep. Albert J. Perry is quoted as saying "I don't see any immediate opportunity in Vermont. I'd need to see how it's set up, get a more concrete presentation of how it would work." This was seconded by the executive VP of the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association: "The concept of trading carbon credits is probably something that's in our future. The $64,000 question is `What's it going to look like?' Some of the best ideas get lost in translation, between concept and implementation."
Two things are for certain:
- Such a program needs to extend beyond Vermont. No state (or nation) can retain industry if its neighbors do not share the same expenses.
- The merit could easily be lost in translation. For instance, giving free permits to existing emitters (to avoid shifting advantage to a neighboring polity) would eviscerate the incentives. So would any system of exemptions for certain fuels, or for "the poor".
It's a proposal from a visionary, not a bill submitted by an elected statesman. But the ideas are a long way from what seems like their natural home in California, which makes it a hopeful beginning.
¶ 1/18/2007 01:24:00 AM
If I were a legislator, my first interest would be stable and reliable electricity supplies and prices. I would put the burden of proof on those proposing such an auction to show that it is immune to manipulation.
I am told that R. James Woolsey has been sent a copy of "Sustainability", but he seldom responds.
I would argue that 'wide and shallow' (many states, power plants only: RGGI) is a more viable approach than 'narrow and deep' (1 state, all sources). 'Wide and deep' is not a tenable starting point politically. Once established and debugged (it is much, much easier to manage a trading system among tens of large players rather than thousands or millions of small ones), it's mandate could be broadened to fuels, etc.
<< Home
