Joseph wrote:

> Cap and trade is the quintessential market-based measure, and it 
> consists of creating an artificial market in carbon certificates.

I fully agree that cap and trade is a bogus solution which
has to be fought tooth and nail.  The difference between
cap and trade and taxes is that cap and trade generates a
new type of asset, it privatizes the sky.  This makes a big
difference, because ownership of assets allows the
capitalists to exploit the workers, therefore in capitalism
every asset draws interest.  Lots of economists think that
cap and trade with full auctioning is equivalent to taxes.
I think this is wrong, because it only looks at flows and
not at stocks.

Since cap and trade is evil, you seem to assume that nothing
can be done as long as we have markets.  This is where I
disagree.  Lots can be done even while there are markets,
and if we want to overcome markets we first have to exhaust
the possibilities of markets.

Most policy makers agree that a market signal limiting
the release of carbon is needed.  Some say this by itself
can do the heavy lifting.  I disagree.  Market signals can
only make a difference if alternatives are available.  To get
these alternatives, investment is needed, private investment
and investment by the state.  I think the market signal
is necessary but not sufficient.

Both taxes and cap and trade are flawed.  Many well-meaning
climate activists don't get it how much worse cap and trade
is than taxes.  I think the best way to resolve this is to
promote carbon rationing.  It limits the use of carbon
without distorting prices, it allows international trading
of carbon quota, by poor nations selling their unused carbon
quota to rich nations, yet it does not create a new asset
which corporations can hope to use for profit making.  All
this is not set in stone, all this has to be fought for, and
we need activists at the table who see the class
implications of the policies.

> Carbon offsets also created an artificial market according
> to non-market critera.

The advantage of the Durban framework, with its goal of
binding constraints on every nation, is that the Clean
Development Mechanism is no longer possible.  There will be
no carbon offsets in the Durban framework (I hope, all these
are things we have to fight for), instead there will be
international linkages between the national carbon reduction
programs or perhaps even a global carbon reduction program.
This is a very good thing.

This is my last message under this thread.

Hans
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to