On the EU ETS criticism: Since the entry into force of the EU ETS in 2005 and up to 2017, GHG emissions fell 17% in the EU, 24% in activities where the EU ETS is active (energy and industry) and only 10% in the rest.
Professor Tooze: Thank you for your usual insightful analysis. I have one point of contention, or perhaps correction, that I want to raise. You refer to a "carbon tax." And you pronounce a carbon tax DOA in Congress. Perhaps. But if it is to be resuscitated, as I hope it can be, it must be identified for what it is--a "fee" or "price" and a "dividend" or "rebate" and for what it isn't: a "tax." A tax, in normal parlance (and I know economists may disagree), is a mandatory payment to the government to fund government operations and programs. Under the Energy Innovation & Dividend Act, the leading template for carbon pricing, the money collected (tax, if you insist) will be paid out regularly to Americans in equal shares. This equality of distribution will prove a net gain for most individuals and families (about 2/3 of us), while the wealthier will suffer a net deficit. Given the difference in carbon footprints between low- and middle-income individuals and the wealthier among us, this seems equitable and wise. After all, rocket ships to the edge of space are going to add up! Thus, it strikes me (with some polling data to back up my contention) that if "marketed" properly, this scheme could be adopted, even in the U.S.
That so much work and effort is put into researching carbon markets and ultimately coming to recognizing the problem is not the market, but that the market is manipulated by special interest groups....brings to mind a lot of unpleasant imagery. Really? Special interest groups manipulating markets?!? It takes a serious amount of elite university education to achieve the cluelessness these studies seem to have about the world.
The carbon market idea is the religion that ultimately and always turns into politics.
Where's the mention of the subsidies for petroleum that exist now, starting with the 'depletion allowance'? Didn't the World bank estimate ~$1 trillion in annual subsidies for petroleum?
Markets are not discriminating - it's the point of using markets. The point is that markets are easy to handle and reasonably impartial.
If you want to handle each sector differently, that involves involving people, their foibles, their fallible judgement, and interest groups to manipulate those people.
Leaving it to the gameable algorithm of the market is far better.
On the EU ETS criticism: Since the entry into force of the EU ETS in 2005 and up to 2017, GHG emissions fell 17% in the EU, 24% in activities where the EU ETS is active (energy and industry) and only 10% in the rest.
Professor Tooze: Thank you for your usual insightful analysis. I have one point of contention, or perhaps correction, that I want to raise. You refer to a "carbon tax." And you pronounce a carbon tax DOA in Congress. Perhaps. But if it is to be resuscitated, as I hope it can be, it must be identified for what it is--a "fee" or "price" and a "dividend" or "rebate" and for what it isn't: a "tax." A tax, in normal parlance (and I know economists may disagree), is a mandatory payment to the government to fund government operations and programs. Under the Energy Innovation & Dividend Act, the leading template for carbon pricing, the money collected (tax, if you insist) will be paid out regularly to Americans in equal shares. This equality of distribution will prove a net gain for most individuals and families (about 2/3 of us), while the wealthier will suffer a net deficit. Given the difference in carbon footprints between low- and middle-income individuals and the wealthier among us, this seems equitable and wise. After all, rocket ships to the edge of space are going to add up! Thus, it strikes me (with some polling data to back up my contention) that if "marketed" properly, this scheme could be adopted, even in the U.S.
That so much work and effort is put into researching carbon markets and ultimately coming to recognizing the problem is not the market, but that the market is manipulated by special interest groups....brings to mind a lot of unpleasant imagery. Really? Special interest groups manipulating markets?!? It takes a serious amount of elite university education to achieve the cluelessness these studies seem to have about the world.
The carbon market idea is the religion that ultimately and always turns into politics.
Just getting to the part of White Skin, Black Fuel which references Wages of Destruction - hoping you'll address the reference in the LRB article.
Where's the mention of the subsidies for petroleum that exist now, starting with the 'depletion allowance'? Didn't the World bank estimate ~$1 trillion in annual subsidies for petroleum?
The critique sounds... odd to me.
Markets are not discriminating - it's the point of using markets. The point is that markets are easy to handle and reasonably impartial.
If you want to handle each sector differently, that involves involving people, their foibles, their fallible judgement, and interest groups to manipulate those people.
Leaving it to the gameable algorithm of the market is far better.