That which they call a carbon cap

Environmentalists say the mainstream media hasn't asked presidential candidates enough questions about global warming. But if the questions were asked, would people even understand the debate?

Let's play a little game: Raise your hand if you can tell me the difference between a cap-and-trade program and a carbon tax program -- You get 20 points. Raise both hands if you can explain the difference between the cap-and-trade program Hillary Clinton supports, versus the one that McCain supports -- You get 80 points. 100 points wins the game here -- Did you win?

More seriously: Clinton, McCain, and Obama all say they support a cap-and-trade program, while Nader's behind a carbon tax. Nader's lone wolf stance perhaps gives you an idea of how politically infeasible a carbon tax program would be to institute -- but if you're like me, you'll still want to know why that's so. Yet you probably don't want to slog through hundreds of articles or commit to reading long, wonky tomes full of numbers to figure out what's going on....

Thanks to Peter Barnes, you don't have to. The author of "Capitalism 3.0" has come out with a new quick read -- a little booklet called "Climate Solutions: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why." Labeled as "a citizen's guide," this 120-page booklet (81 pages without all the front and back matter) seeks to give enviro-conscious people a digestible yet thorough primer on today's major political debates about lowering carbon emissions.

"Climate Solutions" is a simple guide to the big environmental policy decisions that are soon going to be made. The U.S. needs to decide what program to put in place to reduce our carbon emissions, and this booklet explains in plain language what these different carbon-reduction-related programs are -- as well as what  political, environmental, and social implications are tied in each of these programs. By reading these few pages, the average voter will be able to figure out what programs to support and what to fight against, instead of simply shrugging one's shoulders and hoping for the best.

Read this, and you'll find out the difference between carbon taxes, carbon caps, and carbon regulations. In fact, did you know that there are in fact three different cap-and-trade programs? Well there are: Cap-and-giveaway, cap-and-auction, and cap-and-dividend.

While laying out the options, Barnes isn't shy about sharing his opinions. He's clearly not behind carbon taxes, asserting that "A carbon tax is an economist's dream but a politician's nightmare."  To believe carbon taxes will work, Barnes says we need to "assume heroic behavior by a majority of Congress members for several decades, an assumption not grounded in reality." That's rather sad news for the environmental justice groups that have been pushing for carbon tax programs instead of cap-and-trade  -- though I (and most environmentalists and environmental groups) agree with Barnes' opinion.

In fact, Barnes comes out in clear support of cap-and-dividend programs -- and makes a pretty good case, because he takes an unflinching look at all the options on the table first, dissecting their possibilities and potential failures.

Read the book yourself to see whether you agree or disagree. You can buy the booklet for $9.95 -- or download an abbreviated free PDF version titled "Carbon Capping A Citizen's Guide"  at onthecommons.org. This version's just 22 pages long, and is mostly limited to covering just the carbon capping programs. However, this PDF also has information on current legislation -- and will be continuously updated to reflect the latest news.

After you've formed your opinion, check out where your preferred presidential candidate stands on carbon caps.

Comments

[Phil]

Altogether, anthropogenic sources of carbon contribution are, depending on who's measuring, between 4% and 6% annually. The IPCC is asking for a 14,000,000,000 metric tons reduction in anthropogenic atmospheric carbon annually by 2050 -- about half 2005 levels. Not only is anthropogenic carbon too small to drive the climate change modeled, the reduction sought is completely unfeasible. It's not going to happen.

More to the point, if people were actually serious about carbon reduction, rather than merely symbolic, they would ignore the automobile and go for mass sequestering of carbon at fixed location power generation. There's far more leverage there than in private transportation. The car is already on a one-way street to becoming environmentally benign.

Note that the most advanced climate researchers in the US, China and Russia are charting out long-term global cooling beginning within 20 years.

Green LA Girl likes environmental propaganda.

[jrb]

"Note that the most advanced climate researchers in the US, China and Russia are charting out long-term global cooling beginning within 20 years."

That won't be soon enough to save the polar bear.

Say Phil, you work for an oil company or what?

[csm]

A carbon tax politically impossible? I don't think so. It just hasn't been sold properly.

One can make a very strong conservative case for a carbon tax. Sure, a carbon tax is a new tax (bleah!), but if it is use to completely replace an existing tax, we have a net benefit in terms of tax simplification.