ecomii politics blog
Home > ecomii blogs  > ecomii politics blog > The Cap and Trade Conundrum

ecomii healthy living

The Cap and Trade Conundrum

By Nathaniel Manning
March 23, 2009
File under: Economy, Environmental Policy, Obama

cap_and_trade.jpg

In Obama’s recent address to Congress he called for the submissions of Cap and Trade policies for the United States of America. It looks as if by the end of 2009 the USA will be the last developed country to adopt a carbon trading scheme, but what will this scheme look like and what will be done with the money earned from the selling of permits?

In short, a Cap a Trade policy puts a cap on the amount of carbon industries and organizations are allowed to expel. These companies would buy pollution permits from the government, and can then buy and sell these permits amongst themselves, so that companies who can reduce more efficiently can sell excess permits to those who are unable to reduce in a financial feasible manner.

The government, as a result, will collect vast sums of new funds from the selling of these permits through the creation of a regulated carbon-polluting market.

There are a three different philosophies at the moment on what should be with this new revenue; the first, that the new funds should be reinvested into the industries and households that will be most affected by the consequential rise in energy prices.

The second thought is that these funds should go towards clean energy research and subsidies to create cheaper alternatives.

Finally, many believe that the government will squander the earnings from selling permits, and thus the funds should be given back to the public in a re-invested dividend, much like the system used in Alaska in which each citizen is given back an equal percentage of the funds earned from taxes on oil drilling.

I (and the Obama administration) propose a combination of the three. Use 40% of the earnings to subsidize clean energy and fund research into newer technologies like a smart grid, solar, wind, and energy efficiency. Use 30% to invest in energy efficiency, building retrofits, and consequently green job creation in the poorest communities who will be hit hardest by the increase in energy prices.

Finally, divide the remaining 30% into a countrywide dividend reinvestment program; this means that every American citizen would receive the same sized check in the mail each year from these funds.

This way we are holding companies financially accountable for polluting, and then using these funds to benefit the American citizen in the large-scale through technology subsides, the targeted-scale through building retrofits for the poorest communities, and the equality-scale through reinvested dividends.

Click here to learn more about your Carbon Footprint.

 
Comments (5) Email Link
 
5  Comments
  1. Cameron S
    March 24, 2009 11am UTC

    This kind of analysis is crucial – all too often I find that we, the US, votes laws into action without laying out the ground rules for the spending. Take AIG as an example. Thanks

  2. J Mads
    March 26, 2009 9am UTC

    Nice article. I think splitting up the funds is a good idea, but that giving checks to people doesn’t really make much sense. We’ve already got a ridiculous deficit, and I don’t understand the desire to give back to families, as if something were owed. Carbon taxes force companies to pay the total cost of their operations, which include negative effects on the environment. This is a legitimate goverment revenue source, and should be treated as such.

  3. Jenny B.
    November 3, 2009 9pm UTC

    While I totally agree that we should be wise stewards of our environment (as well we should be for all things in our care), the cap and trade concept sounds more like a glorified scheme to pay to pollute.

  4. Debbie B
    April 27, 2010 3pm UTC

    Although I believe in being energy wise and good to mother earth, from my research global warming is a hoax and I do not believe Al Gore. This is about making money and there is a lot of money to be made in green energy for the individuals that have pushed this. Please read up on energy production, including coal and read what the scientists have said, including the scientists that Gore employeed to push the agenda. They now have come out and said the findings were based on a false representation. Carbon footprint, please investigate the facts!

  5. excess weight
    June 25, 2014 1pm UTC

    excess weight…

    The Cap and Trade Conundrum – from ecomii blogs…

 
Leave your comment
 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
« all ecomii blogs  
  
 
About this blog

Stay current on the latest policies and progress government is making on addressing green issues. Find out what is going on off-camera and in the discussion chambers of government. Advocate your thoughts and ideas.

 Subscribe in a reader

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

 
recent posts
 
other green blogs
 
blog categories