Seven solutions for climate change and creating a new energy economy

Cap on Emissions

Cap on Emissions

Capping emissions of carbon dioxide is the name of the game in Washington when it comes to global warming legislation. But it's not an easy thing to do. Think for a minute about what it would take to design such a law.

How high do you place the cap - what's the maximum amount of allowable emissions? How fast do you bring that cap steadily downward? How do you divvy up the cap into pieces and hand out the right to pollute? If you use emissions permits, how can they be traded or sold? Do you give them away or do you auction them off? If you auction them off, where does the money go? Who is going to watch over all this? The questions just keep piling up.

A mechanism to put a cap on emissions has become a popular idea for two reasons. First reason: it was how this country tackled the problem of acid rain. The cap mechanism, on a smaller scale, has worked against sulphur dioxide. Stands to reason it could work for carbon dioxide. Second reason: because putting a tax on carbon, even though it would be far easier and more efficient than a cap, is thought to be politically impossible.

America's Fortune at Stake

But there's a third reason now that has really become the kicker: there's a fortune at stake. Here's why.

In order to cap emissions, you have to be able to count them. The way to do that is to issue a set number of permits. One permit for every ton of carbon, until you hit the cap. Then no more are available. No permit, no emissions. And each year, you decrease the number of permits available, and bring the cap down on emissions. (Science recommends a 2% decrease each year for the next 40 years, or 80% by 2050.)

The scarcer permits get, the more valuable they become. So let's say you get a permit you don't need, you can sell it. In other words, permits will be a new form of currency. Some experts estimate that when it matures the market in carbon permits will be worth $500 billion or more every year.

So here's another way to think about the law to cap emissions that will eventually emerge from Congress: the government is going to print $500 billion in new currency and set the rules for who gets to have it.

We best pay attention, and learn about the different options that are in play. The solution we end up with will be America's answer to this simple question: Who owns the sky?

Register or login to subscribe to updates from solve climate

Jargon Watch

A C E G V All
  • As Mr. Portokalos says in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, "Give me any word, and I show you the root of that word is Greek." He can even do it with "kimono", so anthropogenic -- close cousin of anthropology -- should be easy for us. It means "caused by human activity."

    In relation to global warming, anthropogenic emissions are the gases, most notably carbon dioxide, that we humans have pumped into the air, especially over the last 150 years of modern industrial life, without giving it a thought, as if the atmosphere has the limitless capacity to absorb our waste. It doesn't.

  • Carbon Capture and Sequestration is the name of a technology, still in development, that is supposed to help us clean up the emissions that come from the burning of coal. It has acquired the status of a myth, the kind that when it's mentioned, thinking ceases.

  • Here's what the Competitive Enterprise Institute had to say about it in their ad campaign:

    "Carbon Dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life."

    It was probably one of the most ridiculed ad campaigns of recent memory. Last word has to go to Rafael Baptista, who posted this comment on Gristmill.

    "How about you make a campaign called 'Uric Acid. They call it urine. We call it lemonade.'"

  • The most highly radioactive form of carbon known to politicians. Like Kryptonite to Superman, carbon taxes are believed to rob politicians of their powers through unavoidable election loss. No one knows for sure, because no politician has had the courage to really try to enact one.

    A carbon tax would be the simplest and most efficient way to solve climate on an economy-wide basis, and the most rational thing to do. It would be beneficial to every living thing except politicians.

    Last we checked, they're not on the endangered species list.

  • The best way to understand the role of China in America's global warming debate is to understand the function it plays in the national psyche. Here's one analysis.

    America has made China the victim of its own psychological projection, a defense mechanism in which one blames others for one's own unacceptable attributes.

    So rather than take responsibility for being far and away the world's biggest global warming polluters on a per capita basis, Americans have been duped into pointing the finger at China.

  • The Merriam Webster online dictionary defines it this way: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

    So let's use common sense and think about evidence of global warming.

    The ice caps are melting, massive chunks of ice are collapsing into the ocean, and glaciers are in retreat all over the world. Nobody can argue with that.

    Okay, but how do we know fossil fuels are the cause?

  • Think of a dormant volcano. It's got a cap on it.

    An emissions cap is a similar idea. It's a legally binding mandate that puts a lid on greenhouse gas emissions, and slowly lowers it over time.

    The science clearly tells us where to put the lid, what the maximum amount of allowable emissions should be. Science describes this point in many different ways, but the easiest formulation is this:

    Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2% every year.

    Otherwise, like a volcano, the climate will erupt in unpredictable fury.

  • Ethiopia usually doesn't figure into discussions about global warming. But Prime Minister Meles Zenawi made an impression at the 2007 Clinton Global Initiative in New York, where he provided the following well-received comments:

    The only realistic option for Africa is to grow in a carbon neutral fashion. Many people when they discuss global warming and climate change, they are doing it from the point of view of those who are responsible for 80% of the pollution. But there is an African perspective.

  • Long before treehuggers roamed the Earth, the greenhouse effect was scientifically investigated and confirmed.

    First discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1829, the greenhouse effect works by reducing the amount of heat the planet loses to the cold of outer space. It's a good thing. It is what makes life on Earth possible. Without it, the surface of the planet would be as much as 30 degrees centigrade -- or more than 80 degrees fahrenheit -- colder.

  • The story of the planet Venus provides a cautionary tale, as told by Al Gore.

    Earth and Venus are neighbors in the solar system. They are both exactly the same size. Both have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. But ours is in the ground, and on Venus it's in the atmosphere.

    The difference is, the temperature here is 15 degrees Celsius -- 59 degrees fahrenheit -- and on Venus, it's 455 degrees Celsius -- or 800-something degrees fahrenheit.

A C E G V All

Related Posts