Mmm. Carbon

[DesmoLu]

Yeah, and they are all headed to Copenhagen!

[akmnstr]

I like how this conversation, thus-far, has focused on how to make a system work as opposed to the debate as to if we need a system to control CO2 levels at all.

Did you speak too soon?

[aaronb]

when are we going to cap the worse green house gas offender, dihydrogen monoxide vapors

[ducpainter]

when are we going to cap the worse green house gas offender, dihydrogen monoxide vapors

when Al Gore invents them

[Oldfisti]

when are we going to cap the worse green house gas offender, dihydrogen monoxide vapors

You funny.

[yotogi]

Did you speak too soon?

So far no, and it seems like people have taken the conversation in the making-fun-of-each-other direction which is never a bad thing!

[angler]

I guess I'm cynical and I don't expect corporations to act in the best interest of either the public or the environment.  Protection of the environment and the public interest has been the roll of the government since the issues of a degrading environment were raised.  Will a corporation be motivated to move towards a sustainable carbon free energy source when it can trade for credits?  Carbon based fuels are still cheaper than the alternatives and I don't see where the motivation to change when the bottom line is the bottom line.  Having said my piece I realize that credits are what the world has chosen and I hope that it works and it is enough.

I'll get serious again.  Creating markets for pollution, any pollution, makes polluting impact a corporation's bottom line.  That is why they work, and they do work very well when set up correctly.  Making a corporation purchase the right to pollute is MUCH more efficient than simply setting a pollution limit with a fine for breaking that limit. That is the old gov't command and control method of pollution control that can work, but is pretty inefficient.   

Market mechanisms do not expect corporations to suddenly become altruistic, they  make them pay to play. If corporation A is using a sustainable fuel, they can sell the credits they generate to corporation B that doesn't use sustainable fuel, thereby reducing the total amount of carbon based fuel used.  Why does this work?  Not because corporation A altruistically uses renewable fuel, but because they use renewable fuel to increase their profits.  Perhaps they market a green product - perhaps they use a sustainable fuel like cow shit or waste wood chips as a by-product of another manufacturing process.  Alternately, corporation B can buy carbon credits from corporation C that is in the business of sequestering carbon.   

[Oldfisti]

when are we going to cap the worse green house gas offender, dihydrogen monoxide vapors

Am I the only one who actually got that?

[Popeye the Sailor]

Am I the only one who actually got that?

I got it 

[aaronb]

Am I the only one who actually got that?

[akmnstr]

I'll get serious again.  Creating markets for pollution, any pollution, makes polluting impact a corporation's bottom line.  That is why they work, and they do work very well when set up correctly.  Making a corporation purchase the right to pollute is MUCH more efficient than simply setting a pollution limit with a fine for breaking that limit. That is the old gov't command and control method of pollution control that can work, but is pretty inefficient.   

Market mechanisms do not expect corporations to suddenly become altruistic, they  make them pay to play. If corporation A is using a sustainable fuel, they can sell the credits they generate to corporation B that doesn't use sustainable fuel, thereby reducing the total amount of carbon based fuel used.  Why does this work?  Not because corporation A altruistically uses renewable fuel, but because they use renewable fuel to increase their profits.  Perhaps they market a green product - perhaps they use a sustainable fuel like cow shit or waste wood chips as a by-product of another manufacturing process.  Alternately, corporation B can buy carbon credits from corporation C that is in the business of sequestering carbon.   

Angler, Thanks for taking the time to explain how you see this working.  I am not totally convinced but that's okay and as I said before I hope it works.  We have a lot riding on it.  Yesterdays headlines indicated that China is taking the issue seriously which I found to be a pleasant surprise, almost makes me optimistic. 

[angler]

Angler, Thanks for taking the time to explain how you see this working.  I am not totally convinced but that's okay and as I said before I hope it works.  We have a lot riding on it.  Yesterdays headlines indicated that China is taking the issue seriously which I found to be a pleasant surprise, almost makes me optimistic. 

Actually Wikiepedia has a great little blurb on using markets to combat pollution at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading.  The acid rain reduction strategies (SO2 emmissions) have been a huge success, largely eliminating acid rain altogether by letting companies sort it out themselves using the market.

I consider myself to be an environmentalist, but also libertarian. Free markets have gotten a bad rap recently, but I think they are a great way to fix problems in ways that is less painful to business and consumers and without the bungling gov't mucking about in the process.  Markets work wonders in fisheries mgmt, the area that comprises most of my business.  Carbon markets are just starting to emerge and nutrient markets may emerge VERY quickly VERY soon to control non-point source water pollution.  Hopefully they will work as well as fishery markets and SO2 markets.  I think carbon markets will be incredibly tricky and at the end of the day may not work as well as a carbon tax.