Gar gives the following argument against cap and trade: > Someone might end up with surplus permits to sell, not > because they actually reduced emissions more than planned > but because measurement error shows them as reducing > emissions more than planned.
I agree, but this argument does not apply to tradable carbon quota. In a world with tradable carbon quota, someone will end up with surplus permits to sell only if their consumption is less carbon intensive than the average at this phase of the decarbonization. These are individuals. There will be safegards discouraging individuals from speculating in carbon rations, for instance these rations have an expiration date and they can only be held by individuals, not by corporations. Carbon rationing is a way to coordinate the necessary shifts in consumption. Decarbonizing consumption is not the same as "left austerity." Going to a life with clean air even in the middle of the cities, less noise, convenient mass transportation without road rage, healthy organic food, more free time and more community involvement, etc, is not a form of austerity. It is something people will want to do, despite the drawbacks (people will actually have to go out every morning and feed the chicken in urban agriculture or protect the crops is a storm is coming). That is why it is not yet completely utopian to say that the necessary "transformation" is possible. Hans G Ehrbar _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
