PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

TEQs & C.A.R.E.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> TEQs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jo



Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 184
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:08 pm    Post subject: TEQs & C.A.R.E. Reply with quote

C.A.R.E. = Cap, Auction, Rebate Everything

I have thought about this for a while and my conclusion is that it's just an administrative way to circulate money.

Why not just cap emissions without circulating money ?

The situation with the prices of Energy and Fuel is bad enough without calling for companies to bid for Carbon Rights and passing the Auction costs down the Carbon "food chain".

Policymakers are still fixated with the idea that you can put a price on Carbon.

Money cannot be a proxy for pollution.

Just stop the pollution, by law, by regulation.

Ban coal-fired power plants. Ban traffic congestion. Ban leaky houses. Then we wouldn't need money-circulation schemes.

And if you don't have the strength to ban things, just issue Energy Quotas to the amount of the Carbon Budget.

If you don't have an Energy Quota, you can't use Energy.

Problem solved...

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/02/a-climate-change-proposal-with-cash.html

A Climate Change Proposal With Cash

"Cap-and-dividend" advocates say to tackle global warming, Uncle Sam will need to hand out money

By Marianne Lavelle
Posted June 2, 2008


What if every American got paid for being part of the climate change solution? There would be a lot more political support for doing something big, say advocates of "cap-and-dividend," an idea garnering increasing attention as Washington begins to grapple with global warming.

The potential cost to consumers and the concept's downright complexity have been big sticking points in the ideas that have been floated so far?including the big Climate Security Act that the Senate is set to begin debating this week.

That plan, authored by independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican John Warner of Virginia, would be the same kind of cap-and-trade scheme that Europeans already are using to attempt to control carbon dioxide.

Emissions are limited, or capped, but the thousands of companies that produce carbon dioxide have the flexibility to trade emissions rights among themselves.

The Warner-Lieberman bill's prospects are not strong, given the difficulty of capturing all the emitters of carbon dioxide in an economy that runs on fossil fuel, the dispute over loopholes, and the specter of even more steeply rising energy prices.

But Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has gained Warner's and Lieberman's support for amendments to the bill that would return 14 percent of the revenue generated to citizens?a step in the direction of cap-and-dividend.

Cap-and-dividend advocates, who believe the Boxer proposal does not go far enough, argue that a well-designed system could become as popular a federal program, and as sacrosanct, as Social Security.

The idea, spelled out in a working paper last fall by economists at the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute, is to force the oil companies, coal companies, and other "first sellers" of fossil fuel to buy federal permits for the right to sell carbon-emitting fuel each year.

The revenue from those permit sales would go into a fund that would be distributed as dividends to every U.S. citizen?perhaps in monthly payments directly into their bank accounts. It would be similar to the dividend that Alaska residents receive to share in the revenue of oil exploration in that state.

Under cap-and-dividend, gasoline and coal-fired-electricity prices nationwide would go up, but consumers would be getting cash to help them cope with those rising costs.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich calls it a "win win" idea that voters will buy. Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, a member of the Senate Energy Committee, has said he might support climate legislation if it returns money directly to citizens.

No one, though, has been pushing cap-and-dividend harder than socially responsible investment pioneer Peter Barnes, who was cofounder and former president of Working Assets Long Distance, a telephone service that donates to nonprofit organizations.

In recent years, he has been writing on climate and trying to come up with ideas to help a free market system deal with protecting the nation's "common wealth," like the atmosphere. Barnes spoke to U.S. News on why giving citizens a dividend?which, based on the Massachusetts research, would be somewhere between $1,200 and $6,000 a year for a family of four?is the best answer so far.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RevdTess



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2902
Location: Newquay

PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
giving citizens a dividend is the best answer so far.


Hurrah! This is more like it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> TEQs All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group