A Primer on Carbon Emission Reduction Systems

During the Democratic candidates' section of the NH debates last Saturday, when Charlie Gibson turned the discussion to a carbon tax as a carbon emission reduction strategy, I listened to what they all had to say. But, later when I was ruminating on the debates, thinking about this particular issue, I realized that my understanding of the two principal emission reduction strategies under consideration (cap and trade and carbon tax) is at best hazy. As a teacher I always tell my students to ask any question they have, saying "if you have a question about something, chances are there are many others in the class who have the same question and aren't brave enough to ask it." So I asked the questions: What exactly is a cap and trade system, what is a carbon tax, how do they work, which one really will be better for the environment and the economy? A big set of questions, and I'm hoping I'm not the only one in the class puzzling over them.

I'm pretty sure the answers I have found are only rudimentary, but they do give a starting point for understanding this particular debate. In Catalyst, The Magazine of The Union of Concerned Scientists, I found this very thorough definition of the cap and trade system. The article includes a small-scale model/example of the system, which is very helpful. Cap and trade is the system favored by the two front-running candates, Clinton and Obama. John Edwards' energy policy is also centered on a cap and trade system. I held my nose and checked the campaign sites of the two current Republican front-running candidates (two was all I could handle), Romney and McCain, whose energy policies are entirely vague, mentioning only nuclear power and "reducing our dependence on foreign oil."

The second emission reduction strategy is the levying of a carbon tax on pollution emitters, and at a great site called "How Stuff Works" I found this explanation of how a carbon tax, well....works. Chris Dodd, who to my sorrow has withdrawn from the race, seems to have been the only candidate advocating for a carbon tax (although his energy policy actually calls for a combination of both strategies as far as I can tell).

Last February Grist magazine's Gristmill blog featured two dueling guest writers presenting their views on these two strategies. Bill Chameides, chief scientist atEnvironmental Defense, gave us Cap and Trade More Effective than a Carbon Tax, and Charles Koumanoff, co-founder of The Carbon Tax Center, followed up with Climate "Realism" Demands Carbon Tax. Reading these two articles may help you make up your mind on which strategy sounds like the best idea or, simply confuse you further. Koumanoff's Carbon Tax Center is an interesting place with a great deal of information that I find quite convincing. The section on "Myths" was of particular help to me. What really matters is that the new administration put one or a combination of these policies into effect as soon as possible. Many seem to feel that the carbon tax idea would be impossible to push through Congress - and I have seen suggestions that this strategy be renamed without the bugaboo word "tax" attached to it. As the campaigns proceed we need to make sure this issue is kept in the forefront of discussion, along with the war(s) and the economy. As Bill Richardson has said: Energy is" the nexus of environmental, national security and economic issues," Republican candidates need to be pressed on this issue just as hard (harder, really) as do the Democrats.

Technorati Tags: cap and trade, carbon tax, carbon tax center, Democratic candidates, emission reduction strategies,

| +Save/Share | |