Latest
|
Letting polluters off the hook(Host intro): The group that's been issuing a series of reports on global warming is due out with its third installment tomorrow. And as happened with editions one and two, negotiations are going right down to the final hours. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is meeting in Bangkok, Thailand trying to iron out the differences. And over here, Congress is expected to pass some kind of global warming bill this year. But commentator Mark Hertsgaard worries lawmakers might wind up rewarding the very companies that have resisted regulations in the past. (Mark Hertsgaard): Unlike lead or asbestos, we can't just ban greenhouse gases. That would shut down America's factories and vehicles overnight. But if we put the right price on greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, we'll use less of them. The easiest way to do that is a carbon tax. That would increase the prices of gasoline, electricity and other fuels. But we could cut payroll taxes to offset any harm to the poor or the larger economy. Most proposals in Congress, however, favor supposedly putting the market in charge. Under the so-called cap-and-trade system, the right to emit carbon would become a commodity. The government would issue carbon emissions permits. Big polluters could buy the right to pollute from companies that haven't used up their permitted pollution levels. We'd reduce the permits over time, giving companies an incentive: the less carbon they emit, the more money they could make by selling their unused quota to someone else. The trouble is, Congress seems inclined to give these emission permits away for free, rather than have companies buy them at auction in an open market. Most global warming bills contain grandfather clauses that give companies free permits for up to 90 percent of their current emissions. That's a complete violation of the polluter pays principle and it distorts honest markets. It would also give massive subsidies to the biggest polluters, while penalizing companies that did invest in emissions reductions. Such a distorted system would also deprive taxpayers of the $300 billion a year the carbon-trading market is expected to generate. Money that could be invested in green-energy development. A carbon tax obviously makes more sense. But if lawmakers decide that markets are their preferred tool to fight global warming, then those markets must be free and fair. No giveaways, no favoritism. Not even for grandfathers. (Host): Mark Hertsgaard's most recent book is called "Earth Odyssey."(sic)
|
Share this
|
