Note to Obama: Promote Carbon Cap and Trade Efforts at the Summit of the Americas
This week, U.S. President Barack Obama will head to Trinidad and Tobago for the 5th Summit of the Americas. He will meet with leaders from Western Hemisphere Nations and discuss a number of pressing issues such as the worldwide economic crisis, U.S. relations with Cuba, trade, energy, conservation, illegal immigration, poverty, and drugs.
Should we expect anything meaningful to happen on the conservation front as a result of the summit and Obama’s new approach toward international relations?
- » See also: Throwing Out Food and Paper Will Be Illegal
- » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.
Probably not. But after giving it some thought, I think that the Summit will actually present Obama with an opportunity to begin discussing one of the more important environmental initiatives that would strengthen political, social, and economic ties in the Americas: a carbon cap and trade program.
In fact, discussing a cap and trade program would be as timely as it could be, with the U.S. Congressional Branch commencing debate on legislation this week, complete with a new plan for carbon cap and trade.
To make a brief but relevant aside, some critics, such as the well-known journalist Thomas Friedman say that carbon cap and trade is too complicated to work. Friedman believes that the current effort to cap carbon will be killed politically by Obama’s rival party as “a tax.” He recommends instead that Obama push for a directly labeled “carbon tax” that is simplistic for the public to understand and free from political attacks that utilize distortion to falsely characterize the reasons for a “cap and trade program.” I’m glad that David Roberts at The Huffington Post has already addressed Freidman’s idiotic view from several perspectives, because I also have my gripes.
What Friedman forgot to mention in his column is that a cap and trade system enacted by the United States might be highly beneficial economically and conservation wise to nations throughout the Americas, whereas a carbon tax would be largely an insular action by the United States. The Europe Union in fact hopes that they would be able to link their emission trading scheme to an American one created during Obama’s presidency.
Closer to home, Mexico, one of the U.S.’s most misunderstood and important neighbors, has voluntarily made efforts to half its carbon emissions. Mexico would most certainly like to participate in an international efforts as well, especially as illegal immigration and drugs have become stressful issues for the U.S. and Mexico. Carbon cap and trade could be a cornerstone for a more positive relationship between the two nations.
On the other hand, a colleague of mine writes that there have been recent reports that Canada and the U.S. will not be joining forces on carbon trading, although I think this more so has to do with a technicality of creating a joint program from the get-go, rather than cooperating in the long-term on cap and trade efforts. It’s also possible that Obama could put pressure on Brazil, the key player in South America to support cap and trade efforts, rather than pursuing their current plan for conserving the Amazon Rainforest through financial bailouts.
Perhaps I’m an idealist, but wouldn’t it be great if a country like Bolivia could get paid handsomely for protecting its sections of the Amazon Rainforest? Or if a country torn to shreds by disaster like Haiti might regain some dignity by reforesting areas, alleviating the danger of catastrophic floods, and make money at the same time as industries in the U.S. keep producing carbon, but instead pay for it?
Herein is the idea with cap and trade. Someone pays the price for producing carbon, while someone else reaps the benefit from finding ways to reduce the important greenhouse gas’s release. Is it really that complicated to understand? A tax on carbon would simply lower carbon production in the U.S., while avoiding to deal with the problem throughout the rest of the world.
I’m not saying that it will be easy to develop a fair cap and trade system internationally, or to develop a a fair system even within the U.S. alone. But I think that in the Summit of the Americas, Obama will find willing partners if he asks for them. Impoverished nations would love to find an alternative to natural resource exploitation and extraction that allows their citizens to improve their quality of life. A cap and trade system might play a big part in doing it. Let’s hope that the discussion about cap and trade efforts does indeed begin at the Summit.
Image Credit: Summit of the Americas Information Network
Anyone thinking that the third world countries will take cap n trade money and do anything with it are very unaware of how it works in most of these countries.
You can get government officers to allow most anything. Get your document stamped, sealed and approved for money (a few bucks some places and more bucks others) and then go right ahead doing whatever it was you were to start with.
In India & China carbon trading is considered like milking the neighbors cow - wonderful & free money.
Russ, have you lived in a developing country? Sure, there is corruption, just as there is in developed countries like the U.S. There are also many, many good people who work for a better future for their fellow citizens.
For the last 30 years I have lived outside the US - first working and now retired.
I never said there were not many good people as I know there are.
Don’t compare the level of corruption in the US & Europe with the developing world. It is like comparing the president’s bowling with that of a pro.
A problem in India is that many customs officers buy (meaning pay for a transfer to) their job at major ports of entry. Sure the government tries to stop it but not very hard - catch a few crooks and declare the problem stopped it the usual policy.
A industry can be certified as compliant with environmental rules while making a total and complete mess - one I worked for did just that. With carefully selection for the location of monitor devices nothing bad will be found. The inspectors are not going to raise many questions if they are happy.
I have seen and lived this kind of problems first hand - in those countries.
I agree with Friedman that a revenue-neutral carbon tax (or better yet, a carbon tax shift approach) will end up being more politically feasible than a cap and trade. Cap and trade has already taken on so much baggage that I don’t think it’s tenable with Rust Belt Dems or with Republicans of any stripe. A carbon tax, on the other hand, is being supported by leading scientists, economists and opinion leaders and is something that far-left and far-right pols can get behind.
[...] Last week before the Summit of the Americas, I wrote about how U.S. President Barack Obama should use the opportunity to promote a hemisphere wide carbon cap and trade partnership effort. [...]
The Concept of CO2 Cap and Trade is Absurd
The real reason Cap & Trade is being foisted on the world is it creates a 3 trillion dollar commodity market for you guessed it: hot air. Finally politicians have found a way to put a price on their most abundant resource! And for politicians there is no downside as nothing has to be actually produced.
The real beneficiaries are the rich special interest who will get wealthier setting up and trading in this new commodities market. But citizens will pay more taxes to operate new regulatory bureaucracies and more for goods as business passes the cost along.
And all this is based on the premise that operating automobiles is resulting in global warming. Question: did Fred Flintstones truck fleet cause the last period of global warming or is global warming a cyclical event that is more affected by sun spot cycles. The Earth has had multiple tropical and glacial ages over the millennia. The most recent news is that the oceans of the world will be cooling for the next 25-30 years.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the most prevalent hot house gas is water vapor. Should citizens of earth try to stop the rain cycle?
And if we are going to implement Cap and Trade who will decide what the optimal CO2 carrying capacity of Earth is?
And there are questions about how to implement financial controls and reliably audit such a system. Will every person and business on the planet be issued C02 permits? Is the permit an asset a business can liquidate when it goes out of business? If a business in California goes out of business and sells its CO2 permit to a company in England, will a new company in California have to find another seller to open his business and replace lost jobs? After all, if there is an optimal CO2 carrying capacity then an increasing population of people and businesses means a lower standard of living and reduced CO2 allotment for each new person or business.
Upon their death can Mom and Dad leave their CO2 permits to their children? Should Mom and Dad be limited to having two children?
What about the countries that do not subscribe to Cap & Trade. Will multi-national companies export new construction and jobs to 3rd world non-subscribing countries? And the flipside, will the people of the Amazon miss out on new opportunities because an American company bought 1000s of acres to be left unused to acquire carbon sequestration credits.