Pollution Allowance Auctions 37
In high school debate, twenty years ago, I ran a case for auctioning pollution permits, the application of the free market to pollution. We did pretty well because there was nothing written against it. In the last week, it's hit the headlines. Wired points out that sulfur dioxide went on the market in 1993. Paul Krugman argues that the market fails in the case of local pollutants like mercury (though his research has been questioned).
And after reading WorldChanging's take on pollution permits, I have to wonder, why aren't these sold on E*TRADE? If I want to take 5 tons of pollution off the market, why should I have to go through a broker? And if I buy 5 tons, what stops Congress from releasing 10 more tons tomorrow?
Citizens (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with you, what is the purpose b/c the govt will turn around and release more. The govt is all for major industries that use pollutants, like energy sources, etc. If the public were too buy them all up they would turn around and rerelease more "blocks".
Now let's suppose that a large group, like a co-op gets together and buys everything, all of the EPA auctions. Would society collectively turn it's head and say "hey, let's find a new source of energy, or a new source of whatever". I think that would be an interesting day...
Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:5, Insightful)
It's perverted for someone (like the Reagan and Bush administrations) to claim to support markets on one hand and the work to defeat them when they don't yield the result that they've pre-ordained.
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:3, Informative)
Presumably it was a contract to cut and that means the proper land owner was selling rights to his land but not selling the land itself. Also, one can assume that the rightful owner of that land generates income from selling those rights. Why do you want to deny that person income? If the conservationists want to protect the f
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:3, Informative)
If the land was cut, it wouldn't have trees ready for harvest for 20-40 years. That's hardly "forever", and why shouldn't the conservationists be able to e.g. market the recreation rights to the forested land instead of the timber?
This is National Forest. The owners are the
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2)
Forests are managed, if you do not management correctly they become overgrown, which is not healthy. Thus if you are not going to cut the trees, you need to find some other way to get rid of the old growth so new trees can grow.
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2)
Yeah, I guess that explains why there were no forests until humans came along to manage them properly. How long have forests been on Earth? How long has man been here? Do you really think the forests need our brilliant management? I think that if the trees were able to vote on it, man would be de-chainsawed until we learned to be a little more respectful.
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2)
The fact is that unlogged forest today is much denser than unlogged forest of 100 years ago.
Hmmm...You think that has anything to do with us decimating the bison herds and other grazing animals that used to keep the grasslands open? I think the real lesson isn't that we need to manage nature but that we need to exist within it and let nature lead us rather than vise versa.
When we put out the fires, the forest just keeps getting denser.
We attack and put out forest fires because logging corporatio
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2)
Simply put, people find it unacceptable when a forest fire goes out of control and burns thousands of houses, or when a cougar kills their daughter playing in the backyard. People aren't going away, and there are fundamental conflicts of interest that prevent man and nature from living together in perfect harmony. Perfect harmony in nature is the kind of life that t
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2)
The "Indians" used to manage the forests by burning. Today forest fires are taboo, so we have to manage them other ways. Of course before that lightening set fires once in a while to clear the forests.
Mind as the other poster pointed out, there are many different forests, and all need different management. I'd tend to trust forest managers who have at least studied biology more than activists who general have not. Though the above is clearly not that case in all situations. Trees are a renewable res
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2)
This is a case of our knowledge outstripping our wisdom. We have the knowledge and technology to affect the forest in profound ways but not the wisdom to restrain ourselves from doing profound damage in the name of greed and profit.
Forest managers are trained to manage a forest so that the maximum board-feet of lumber can be extracted from it, not so that maximum forest health is achieved (although, the forest must maintain some degree of health to reach maximum output.) The "activists", as you call them,
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2)
I disagree that private citizen are interested in the health of the forest. Some are, but a large number have been swayed by activists into supporting a position that isn't for the health of the forest. In many cases the result of what these "private citizens" want is more harmful to industry than helpful to the forest.
There are however many different forests, and each is different so it is unfair to everyone to talk about general cases and assume they apply to all. Just beware of the above when looki
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2)
And a large number have been swayed by propaganda into supporting a position which is only good for the industry, and only the industry's short-term interests at that. This says nothing about the merits of the strongest cases on either side.
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2)
I disagree that private citizen are interested in the health of the forest. Some are, but a large number have been swayed by activists into supporting a position that isn't for the health of the forest.
Oh, I see. It's the activists who are swaying public opinion while corporations are just being good straight-arrows with no power brokering or influence purchasing at all. Those activists sure are a well-heeled bunch if they can out-PR corporations.
Frankly, it baffles my mind that anyone could see thin
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2)
I started to read that link, but I got sick over all the biased propaganda there.
Yes, industry does have a lot of propaganda power. So do activists. To trust either with your information is a mistake. Activists have positioned themselves as the little guy that the "Big evil corporation" is out to get, it gets a lot of sympathy, but it doesn't make their positions more valid.
Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas (Score:2)
I started to read that link, but I got sick over all the biased propaganda there.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
If it doesn't fit your world view you immediately avert your eyes. I've seen plenty of biased propaganda on both sides of the environmental debate. I saw very little in that article or else I wouldn't have used it as evidence to support my point. In fact, it's very well researched and documented with footnotes.
You seem to be suffering from hardening of the ideologies. It'
You sound like James Watt (Score:2)
Even if the forests need management, it's far from obvious that clearcutting is therefore good for the forest. The species evolved in an environment where each generation of trees spouted and grew in the decay or ashes of the generation before. Timbering removes most of the w
Re:Citizens (Score:1)
Are the power companies barred from passing this cost on to us - the consumers? I doubt it - I may be wrong but I would assume anything they have to pay for WE have to pay for.
If the cost is actually passed on to us - I wonder about the "incentive" to emit less - for there to BE an incentive it would seem that the associated cost would have to stay with the COMPANIES, and not get
Pass it on down (Score:2)
The limiting factor is the point at which the price increase causes sufficient reduction in demand to make overall revenue decrease. At that point, since the price has been raised as far as it can, other things have to change to increase revenuew -- either sales have to increase (new markets, better marketing, etc.) or costs have to be reduced. So, eventually, the cost of polluting becomes the one that needs to be optimized
Re:Citizens (Score:1)
They could make a rule... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
money after mouth (Score:4, Informative)
are reaching into their own wallets to do it.
My mum, for example, worked with RI project AIDS for a long time, most of my childhood, and she did that on a regular basis and taught the rest of us to do so. She also gave to other AIDS foundations, and if you really feel strongly about the idea that these lives are worth more than money, i can help put you in contact with charities who will help your donation go farther.
link (Score:2)
When proposed (Score:4, Informative)
If you offer Cantor a reasonable return on their investment, I'm sure they would sell them to you (you do the math on how much they paid. Their contact number is listed on the broker page (and they bought 25,000 units). Enron (don't worry they sold the trading business to UBS) will likely have to short them (and then buy from Morgan or Cantor).
Re:When proposed (Score:1)
Why limited permits. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why limited permits. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why limited permits. (Score:4, Informative)
Cleaning up the pollution is only part of the cost. The rest of the cost of pollution (increased asthma and other lung ailments as well as quality-of-life costs) are borne by us
goals of auctioned rights (Score:4, Informative)
The implicit social contract is that the buyer will exercise these rights for an economic gain that benefits others too. Its analogous to the platform ecosystem business model -- you have a platform that others can create products around. You sell access to the platform but let entrants extract value too. The goal of the creating platform or in auction public resources is to enlarge the economic pie for all.
One solution might be to limit the term of the right. Rather than granting in-perpetuity ownership to a pollution right or old-growth forest logging right, the term would be limited to some reasonable length of time. For instance, five years might be sufficient time to encourage peope to buy the right and make the needed invetsment to use the right. Every 5 years, that right would be reauctioned. This ensures that one group or company can't lock-in and inefficiently use these rights. If the former owner is not making money off the right they won't have money to buy the next 5 years worth. If another group has a better use, then they can take over for a better price.
Re:goals of auctioned rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Government fleeces activists (Score:2)
zerg (Score:2)