Here's a lively video about "cap and trade" and whether it is a meaningful step to controlling carbon:
http://www.truthout.org/topstories/120409sg05
Plato's Dialogues
my most recent book
Bridges to Autonomy; Paradoxes in Teaching and Learning, by Matt Silliman and David Kenneth Johnson (click on book for more information)
5 comments:
Another issue that I do not think was mentioned on the problems of Cap and Trade is the loss of respect and integrity of the environment. Economic plans would belittle the aesthetic value that people have for the environment, because it is being reduced to a price. Also, this climate solution is easily corruptible, so the value of the environment, is again, tossed up in the air for the greater economic gains from large corporations.
Great video, love the animation. However, I am a bit confused about a few parts of it. At around 3 minutes in, she states "we'll meet our climate deadline, avoiding catastrophe, and oh yea,these guys take their fee as they broker this multi trillion dollar carbon racket, i mean market." If i remember correctly, in Barnes' proposal the money went into a trust. Why would this system even be created if it knowingly would allow anyone to profit off of it? Also, she mentions "cap and giveaway," why would they give away the majority of permits to industrial polluters for free? It simply doesn't make sense, and is almost a direct contradiction of what the cap-and-trade system is supposed to accomplish. The video did a great job identifying the problems of cap-and-trade.
To the extent that human civilization already operates on a reductive view of nature as simply raw material for our economy, Aliesha is correct that current cap and trade proposals (unlike Peter Barnes's commons trust idea, for example) operate within that worldview. If it turns out to be possible to rescue the planet with a scheme such as this, it is clear that we would just be saving it for later, not for some higher ideal. On the other hand, if it worked, that would be vastly better than the alternative.
Entertaining as it is, the cartoon tries to make a systematic case for why cap and trade on the current model (giving away initial credits, involving the financial industry in trading) cannot work. It is probably worth watching a second time to try to follow its reasoning.
Reducing our greenhouse gas emmissions should be something that happens without a price to pay. I agree with Aliesha here. This cap and trade solution seems corrupt. Like the opening line in the video reads "You cant solve a problem with the thinking that created it".
I'm not sure what you mean by the suggestion that we could reduce our emissions without paying a price. Although there may be truth to the suggestion that the transition to a green economy can be beneficial, there is no doubt that making that transition will be disruptive and expensive (for example, the cost of fossil fuels will probably have to skyrocket to motivate us to stop using them). Of course, compared to the cost of continuing on our present course, the cost is minimal...
Post a Comment