Update 2/17: Also check out Gov. Kulongoski’s rebuttal from Saturday’s Oregonian.
On Monday, I pointed to an editorial by The Oregonian which denounced cap and trade because of the possibility of federal action and asked Oregonians to sit idle and wait for a program to come to them. As I pointed out in that post, there are far more reasons to take action now than to wait.
Now, adding to the dialogue is Angus Duncan: (Angus is the president of Bonneville Environmental Foundation and chairman of the Oregon Global Warming Commission). (Emphasis is mine.)
“The [Oregonian] editorial board evidently subscribes to the Obama-as-Superman hypothesis. The president proposes carbon legislation; the Congress instantly and enthusiastically complies…Any national carbon strategy must rely on organized regional support in the West, Northeast and elsewhere to overcome resistance in regions defending the status quo. The president needs the Western Climate Initiative.”
And a few other reasons:
“The best way for Western states to ensure fair treatment in a national cap and trade is to propose a design that works here”
“Early action will boost Oregon’s economic future…We should bear in mind the example of Denmark, a country about Oregon’s size, which today owns 1/3 of the global market for wind turbines because Danish tractor companies started building wind turbines and competing for emerging wind business 25 years ago.”
Steven Stoft
Cap and trade has good intentions. But consider what they have learned in Germany: All the money they poured into wind turbines, does nothing for the climate! Why? Because of their cap. The cap assures emissions will hit the cap. If one person or program uses less, then there are more carbon permits available and someone else uses more. James Hansen, the famous climate scientist, and Al Gore’s advisor has the answer. It’s explained in Cap-and-Trade Secrets. Free, no registration, and quick to read. Learn what we could get ourselves into.
Aaron Keating
A cap, by definition, exists to ensure emissions will not go beyond a particular level. Hitting the cap is not in and of itself a problem – in fact the effect is to make carbon permits more expensive. When that happens, it makes more economic sense (on the margin) for a particular producer to reduce/eliminate carbon emissions than to buy the permit. The effect is to reduce emissions that, absent cap-and-trade, would otherwise have been produced. There are pros and cons to cap and trade as well as a carbon tax. Personally, I think it makes sense to implement both. But any way you cut it, when it comes to carbon emissions, a kilowatt of wind power is not the same animal as a kilowatt of coal power.
John Plodinec
It would be appropriate to point out that Denmark also pays three times as much for electricity as we do in the US – in fact, has the highest kW rate in the developed world.Further, it is not clear that cap and trade will have the kinds of impacts desired. The system is too susceptible to gaming. A simple carbon consumption tax would be better; incentives for energy efficiency would probably be best.