Help
Sign In
climate change environment
May 2008 
Carbon Tax and Kyoto
Posted on Oct 24th, 2007
by 
Joy Cassell
Joy Cassell
OK, to more serious stuff.
I do try to lighten up a bit as my last few blog entries show. I do think I confused a few of my fellow Zaadzsters with my reference to Kermit the Frog since it has generated email :)
Anyway, my formal training is as an economist (the dismal science I know) but I have been doing some work on figuring out some of the criticisms put forth on Kyoto, carbon trading and a carbon tax. Now this is the stuff of textbooks, and I typically get a glazed over look from my husband and close friends when I start talking like this- so bear with me.
I will be blunt, Kyoto will not work in its current form, it has good intent and no one else has come up with a reasonable substitute. But from an economic point of view enforcement will be impossible and without this - Kyoto falls apart.
Basically Kyoto will charge companies, and or countries to pollute, the sky belongs to all of us and if any entity wants to use it to emit green house gasses you will have to pay the owner - the human race. This in theory will make carbon emission expensive and force companies to find alternatives.
BUT
What will prevent a company from cheating, especially when a government is faced with an economy going into recession or some natural disaster. For example, Georgia currently wants the Federal government to suspend some EPA regulations because of severe drought. What will prevent a company faced with angry investors from asking the same thing? And who really knows how much pollution is released into the atmosphere - can you tell? I can't. so how can charge for something you cannot even quantify.
the other issue is this, if a company or country wants to needs to pollute in excess of the emission credits it has it can purchase it from somewhere else - like a developing country. In many cases it is cheaper to buy emission credits from a developing country, while continuing to pollute - rather than look for energy alternatives.
so it seems to me that from an economic point of view a carbon tax at point of use (easier to track and not as easy to manipulate) that affect all of us is the only way to go, while R&D to find non carbon sources of power. We all pay to pollute while gradually moving to non carbon based power sources.
Oh yeah - this is going to be fun.
Joy
I do try to lighten up a bit as my last few blog entries show. I do think I confused a few of my fellow Zaadzsters with my reference to Kermit the Frog since it has generated email :)
Anyway, my formal training is as an economist (the dismal science I know) but I have been doing some work on figuring out some of the criticisms put forth on Kyoto, carbon trading and a carbon tax. Now this is the stuff of textbooks, and I typically get a glazed over look from my husband and close friends when I start talking like this- so bear with me.
I will be blunt, Kyoto will not work in its current form, it has good intent and no one else has come up with a reasonable substitute. But from an economic point of view enforcement will be impossible and without this - Kyoto falls apart.
Basically Kyoto will charge companies, and or countries to pollute, the sky belongs to all of us and if any entity wants to use it to emit green house gasses you will have to pay the owner - the human race. This in theory will make carbon emission expensive and force companies to find alternatives.
BUT
What will prevent a company from cheating, especially when a government is faced with an economy going into recession or some natural disaster. For example, Georgia currently wants the Federal government to suspend some EPA regulations because of severe drought. What will prevent a company faced with angry investors from asking the same thing? And who really knows how much pollution is released into the atmosphere - can you tell? I can't. so how can charge for something you cannot even quantify.
the other issue is this, if a company or country wants to needs to pollute in excess of the emission credits it has it can purchase it from somewhere else - like a developing country. In many cases it is cheaper to buy emission credits from a developing country, while continuing to pollute - rather than look for energy alternatives.
so it seems to me that from an economic point of view a carbon tax at point of use (easier to track and not as easy to manipulate) that affect all of us is the only way to go, while R&D to find non carbon sources of power. We all pay to pollute while gradually moving to non carbon based power sources.
Oh yeah - this is going to be fun.
Joy
Access: PublicTagged with: Climate Change/Environment
