How California's Carbon Market Actually Works 97
Lasrick writes: Almost 10 years ago, California's legislature passed Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 set the most ambitious legally binding climate policy in the United States, requiring that California's greenhouse gas emissions return to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The centerpiece of the state's efforts — in rhetorical terms, if not practical ones — is a comprehensive carbon market, which California's leaders promote as a model policy for controlling carbon pollution. Over the course of the past 18 months, however, California quietly changed its approach to a critical rule affecting the carbon market's integrity. Under the new rule, utilities are rewarded for swapping contracts on the Western electricity grid, without actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Now that the Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, many are looking to the Golden State for best climate policy practices. On that score, California's experience offers cautionary insights into the challenges of using carbon markets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
California At It Again (Score:2, Insightful)
La la land (Score:2, Insightful)
CA makes fantasy laws that have to be papered over when the dates arrive. News at 11.
The ZEV (zero emissions vehicles) mandates they've been backpedaling on for twenty years are another fine example. Physics and CA voters frequently do not agree on reality. When that happens physics wins. Every time.
Legislate that pi is 4 (Score:3, Insightful)
> legally binding climate policy in the United States, requiring that California's greenhouse gas emissions return to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
The passed a law declaring what the total greenhouse gas emissions will be? Is that like the Indiana bill declaring that pi is 4? If they can just pass a law and that'll make it so, why don't they pass a law that in 2020 California's unemployment rate will be as low as Texas, as opposed to more than 50% higher? Passing a law changes the facts, right?
Re:Seems like it would've worked (Score:5, Insightful)
No, just more imported products of energy-intensive industrial processes, like steel and aluminum. It's already happening to an alarming extent in Europe for exactly that reason, with large metal-working plants (which can consume hundreds of megawatts each) getting moved overseas. Just because you can't import the electricity itself doesn't mean the resulting products have to be made in the US!
Cap & Trade and Carbon Markets are Frauds (Score:2, Insightful)
Cap & Trade and Carbon Markets are Frauds. They merely shuffle around the money doing little to nothing to really reduce pollution. It's a scam to get rich by the players.
Fee rather than market (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem described in the OP is one of several reasons why setting a fee for each ton of carbon dioxide emission is a much better idea that a cap-and-trade scheme. There are numerous other reasons, but I will only highlight the most important.
The entire purpose of either a fee or cap-and-trade scheme is to get carbon consumers to change their behavior (either doing less of things that emit greenhouse gases or by reducing the carbon intensity of the same activities). But almost all the reasonable mitigation measures have long time horizons (years to decades). In cap-and-trade, it is very difficult to predict what the price signal will be at any time in the future. So how can I, as a consumer, decide if it is worth it to buy a more efficient or electric car if there is great uncertainty in how much the carbon control scheme is going to add to my gasoline cost?
Re:try BitCoin next time (Score:4, Insightful)
CO2 knows no borders
What you said is true, but obvious. Effectiveness on global CO2 levels aside, the CA program has been a success by other measures. They intended it to be a pilot program, and it looks like it has mostly worked out from a technical standpoint. They have demonstrated that the system is workable from an administrative and bureaucratic standpoint. Few people are silly enough to think that CO2 emissions can be handled on a local (or even national) level - but having what is effectively one of the largest economies in the world to use as an example is a pretty good start.
As a sad Californian... (Score:1, Insightful)
I keep voting agaist all this left-wing fantasy crap and it keeps getting implemented anyway (Thanks to the bubbleheads in the mega-cities of LA and SF) and then out-of-state friends and relatives ask what's wrong with me and my fellow Californians. There are plenty of normal people here, BUT we ignored a bunch of this stuff early-on (when it was having only a small impact) as part of "keeping the peace" with the huge pool of loonies who desperately wanted it. Eventually, however, we became outnumbered by a tidal wave of always-vote-for-Santa-Clause voters after the population granted amnesty in 1986 hit voting age; the state is permanently "blue" and will probably be so until it completely collapses.
"WE" are NOT always trying "so hard to do the right thing" - our evil corrupt leftist leaders are always working to fool their idiot supporters into supporting them and their evil policies (every one of which is designed to SOUND good but actually enable more corruption). IN EVERY CASE the evidence is there ahead of time that these policies will not work, but the airheads are like flat-earthers - they prefer the nonsense spouted by their dear leaders over objective reality and the lessons of history. With every one of these new policies, they seem not to notice that their deal leaders get richer and more-powerful while they themselves get a little poorer (they often pretend that this is ok by telling themselves that they are "saving the planet" and that this carries a necessary cost).
We normal voters keep warning about this stuff and pointing out that it will not work, but the leftists insist that we are lying and that each new policy will be GREAT. Every single time this stuff backfires, we hear complaints that it was a good idea that almost worked or should have worked and yet they refuse to repeal any of it. Left-wingers clearly do not understand basic human nature; There ARE no "right ways" and no "right people" to implement such policies. Every single one of these political ideas is subject to political corruption PRECISELY because they are political and are run by politicians ALL of whom are human beings with human weaknesses.
Every single one of these crazy policies does even more harm to the middle class, but the masses who depend on handouts vote for it because it they don't think it hurts them and the people who give them freebies are the ones implementing these policies. California is no longer "The Golden State"; It was once the home of a huge portion of the nation's aircraft manufacturing (Lockheed,Douglas,Northrop,Convair, etc all manufactured large planes here), spacecraft and launch vehicle manufacturing (The Apollo CM and SM, Rocketdyne engines, Saturn V S-IVB stage, Atlas rocket, Space Shuttles, etc) was home to the entire semiconductor industry, the computer industry, major ship builders were located here (NASSCO os still in San Diego, but much of the rest is reduced or gone) and even a chunk of the auto industry was here. After decades of ratcheted-up insanity like this, manufacturers have fled the state taking millions of middle-class jobs with them and if you set-aside the illegal immigrant population and their kids the population of the state is falling. NONE of this stops the uber-rich in LA and SF from pushing even MORE lunacy and they can depend on getting their way thanks to the votes of the fully-dependent masses. This is how great things get destroyed.
Obligatory Note: I said NOTHING about skin color (there are illegals of all ethnicities in the state from all over the world) so any leftwinger who is tempted to use the usual tactic of calling me a "racist", be on notice - YOU are the one who immediately looks to skin color.
Al Gore makes millions (Score:3, Insightful)
selling "carbon credits". It's like the Pope selling indulgences.
He does a world class job of advertising too.
Of course anyone who could actually predict climate could be a multi-billionaire with ease.
Instead they apparently sell carbon credits.
Re:La la land (Score:0, Insightful)
Why don't you just imprison or execute those untermenschen who keep foiling your utopian plans? That's the only, likely way they will be implemented. Helpful hint: bring lots of guns and patience.
Re:La la land (Score:3, Insightful)
Centralized energy generation (including coal) is arguably cleaner and more efficient, and it's modular... it can be replaced by solar, wind, natural gas, or fusion in the long run.