2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

ClimateTodd makes a great point about corruption. Listening to the discussion on the radio, The suggestion is that the market system is the best way to make an efficient system to reduce carbon emissions. I agree, with reservations. The recent meltdown of the savings and loan industry demonstrates that an unregulated market will get out of balance and fail. With complete transparency and careful regulation by economists and policy-makers who understand the data and how to analyze it will be necessary to insure a fair and effective trading market.

The other issue is whether the initial allowances are auctioned, or are simply given away. I think of this in analogy to a new monetary system being created. Does it get initialized by giving each person a particular amount of money, or should each person convert existing money to the new money? What is being created will have great value to those who own it. But, I wonder at the practicality of each carbon emitter being required to make what amounts to a potentially large capital expense to get their initial credit allowance. That concern is balanced by a concern about just giving away a valuable "resource." I wish the policy-makers well in balancing these competing concerns.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Re scientific consensus re global warming caused by humans, please see my comment and link above. Stakeholders who want to do nothing about human caused global warming are following the effective model adopted by the tobacco companies to delay action on the dangers of tobacco smoking. They try to bring doubt to the science, hire "scientists" without expertise to question the science, and generally try to minimize the issue. For a credible statement of what credible scientists think, please see:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Arguments being brought forth to deny global warming are rapidly losing credibility. Please see http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
to view the American Geophysical Union's most recent position on global warming. The American Geophysical Union is the most respected, and largest association of Earth Scientists in the world, with about 50,000 members who are scientists and teachers.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Previous comments about the likelyhood of carbon producers gaming the system and the very wealthy generally benefiting from such market solutions are right on the mark. I'm wondering how a simple tax on carbon emissions might compare to a cap and trade system. Advantages are simplicity and a direct correlation of penalties to actual carbon emissions. This seems much more sensible to me.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context