Main Question or Discussion Point
Is Cap and Trade a solution to the Tragedy of the Commons? Are there better solutions?
This is the famous Coase theorem. If there is no overhead associated with the shares the collective profit would be maximized.If instead the farmers decided on a maximum number of cattle that can be grazed without damaging the land and distributed that number of cattle between them with the purchase and sale of shares, would the profits of each farmer be maximized?
Perhaps in the long term, profits would be maximized, but not in the short term. It depends on the criterion of profitability and constraints.If instead the farmers decided on a maximum number of cattle that can be grazed without damaging the land and distributed that number of cattle between them with the purchase and sale of shares, would the profits of each farmer be maximized?
This makes absolutely no sense. Cap and Trade deals specificially with CO2 emissions, not some common resource.I was not interested in cap & trade as it applies to CO2 emissions specifically but to the problem of the Tragedy of the Commons in general.
Are these really the same thing? Perhaps rephrasing as chemisttree suggested would help.I was not interested in cap & trade as it applies to CO2 emissions specifically but to the problem of the Tragedy of the Commons in general.
I agree. Cap and trade will only require companies to buy credits, not cut emmissions. The people trading the credits will make untold $ billions.I'm skeptical of cap & trade, because I see this as another vehicle for middlemen to get involved in a system that produces little or limited benefit while increasing the cost to the many.
Yes. And they're right for the most part. Most people do buy into it.Now it seems we're being conditioned that we'll need to pay more to save the planet. Do they really think we won't notice the scam?
No, natural resources when privately held, are not in the commons. However the products of their use such as CO2 are.I suppose natural resources could be construed as being in the commons
Until the cost of buying credits is more expensive than than that of cutting emissions.Cap and trade will only require companies to buy credits, not cut emmissions.
The real winners will be the companies that can find cost effective ways of reducing emissions and are able to sell their credits to pay for them.The people trading the credits will make untold $ billions.
Maybe the problem is that we've become accustomed to getting energy at bargain prices. Do you think that current prices can be sustained long term?The thing that bothers me is that every discussion of moving towards clean energy now promises higher utility costs. Up until this past year, people made investments in solar and wind to save money (over time) and hopefully earn a small profit during sunny days.
Now it seems we're being conditioned that we'll need to pay more to save the planet. Do they really think we won't notice the scam?
Um - cap & trade systems are found in EU and elsewhere. It's mention in the Wikipedia article one cited. I've attended meetings with representatives of the Austalian government regarding C&T, and other national/international programs were discussed.Okay let's talk about cap & trade as it applies to CO2 emissions. I generally agree with your post #2 because it won't apply to all companies, just those in the U.S.. What would happen in the classical example if two farmers agreed to a cap & trade but the third farmer didn't?
I'd like to share my personal perspective on Government mandates to protect the planet.I think one solution is to build new houses with enough solar panels to supply the electricity for the house and amortize their cost over the life of the mortgage. I suspect that even now, if the higher monthly mortgage payments are compared to the lower monthly energy costs, the panels will be cost effective.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/17/a_tax_on_thin_air_97917.htmlIn a potential preview for America, the Australian Senate has just defeated that country's version of cap-and-trade by a vote of 42-30. Most of the overseas coverage of this event, however, has missed the most interesting feature of the defeat. The BBC report, for example, claims that the bill was blocked because "opposition senators...feared the legislation would harm the country's mining sector."
In fact, the bill was defeated because there is now serious disagreement in Australia on the very existence of human-caused global warming. That's the backbone behind the collapse of what was supposed to be bipartisan agreement. As Senator Nick Minchin put it in a blistering speech opposing the bill, "this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming . . . .