Why can't carbon cap and trade be similarly successful to sulfur cap and trade?

Question

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 used a cap and trade system to reduce anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions. At the time, power companies predicted that reducing sulfur dioxide pollution would cost $1000-$1500 per ton, $51 billion to $91 billion a year, and electricity prices would increase up to 10% in many states. In fact, the actual pollution reduction cost has been between $100 and $200 per ton for most of the program, the legislation will cost only $31 billion next year, and electricity prices fell in most states.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/dc_industryjobs.pdf

Moreover, EPA's analysis of the costs and benefits of the Clean Air Act projects that in 2020 the benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments will exceed the costs of compliance by a factor of 30 to 1. Studies by the Office of Management and Budget and private researchers support these conclusions as well.
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2010/12/02/there-they-go-again/

The same thing is happening with carbon - oil companies (and oil-funded right-wing think tanks) are claiming that carbon cap and trade will cripple the economy, while economists claim the economic impact will be minimal. Benefits of sulfur cap and trade exceeded costs by 30-to-1, so why can't carbon cap and trade have similar success?

Answer 1

I'm sure it would. The problem is that the Congressional Budget Office analysis "does not include the effects of other aspects of the bill, such as federal efforts to speed the development of new technologies and to increase energy efficiency ... [or] the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change."



It's interesting that they had such a high economic impact back then for sulfur trade and now it's lower for carbon and 6 other gases. Now, the CBO estimates and annual cost of $22 billion to the economy until the year 2020. That would be about $175 to each household with those in the lower income receiving a net gain of $40 per year and the wealthiest a net cost of $245.



If they were to look into the other economic benefits, the outcome would likely be similar to that of the sulfur cap and trade. There are more than economic benefits that would come from the US using more renewable energy and using energy efficiency. The right-wing side certainly has the better media campaign. Just searching house.gov the first results that came up for "Cap and Trade Economic" were all from the right wing. I had to add CBO just to get something credible.

Answer 2

I doubt it. The invoice if taken heavily and carried out carefully might have extensive economic outcomes. It has no recommendations in it that are under 25 years previous. the uncomplicated marketplace concept it enbodies became into enjoyed by utilising AEI and CATO and the Ludwig Von Mises crowd, and by utilising the Moron President George W Bush, so it is composed of us from very doubtful parentage certainly. some thing possibly Hoover would have written. Then the Parliament of Wh*r*s desperate to make it the Coal continuously Appreciation invoice, so a pair of million/2 of the invoice is a plan to mine and burn each and every particle of coal interior the country. those strikes does not help climate replace for the greater desirable. Coal makes assorted CO2. there is not any sparkling coal. there is not any CO2 sequestration -- this is all vaporware -- Fiction technology. So the invoice is enable's basically say conspicuously sub-optimized. Senators could make heros of themselves by utilising killing the invoice. they'd posture now and placed that interior the economic business enterprise for the autumn and their next electoral run. no person is gazing now -- you gotta get it on tape and use it later. they can grant speeches to an empty room (as commonplace), and fake they're John Paul Jones saving the Republic, problematical the empty chairs to respond to them lower back, understanding that the cameraman has strict training to not pan around the room. what is going to ensue is a Hydrogen technologies invoice will emerge sometime around Jan/Feb/Mar 2010, and it will leapfrog this previous relic, that truly would desire to pass to the Smithsonian, with the different nineteenth century coal burning kit and locomotives. call it the recommendations droppings of Dubya, uncommon certainly, possibly it might desire to have its own glass case. climate replace merits and gets a intense invoice that addresses the subject substantively, and does not basically attempt to sell greater comparable/previous comparable/previous. we don't need greater workouts in hypocrisy, double-communicate, and ok-highway-offered-and-paid-for-legislations... you could not bribe your thank you to a cooler worldwide. Canute would have taught us that, suited?

Answer 3

Easy because it was not cap and trade for the sulfur. Also, there was a phase in period with a few plants given out right exemptions. Also, most of the sulfur in our air was coming from our own plants. In case you don't understand, around half of the CO2 in California and the West Coast is actually coming from Asia along with a lot of the other pollutants on the West Coast. Also, from talking with the people in the energy industry, the costs to remove the sulfur were a lot lower then projected. Currently the best options rob around 1/3 of the energy from the plants to put the CO2 in a form that can be stored if we don't use algae to use the CO2 as food. I could go on, but you keep on wanting to compare apples to oranges.

Answer 4

It might, if it were done right. There are two reasons why Cap and Trade for carbon might not work as well as Cap and Trade for sulfur;



1. It is politically difficult to implement Cap and Trade for carbon, without having some loop holes. Everybody wants to exempt their favorite coal plant from Cap and Trade.



2. When the CEO of the electric company buys sulfur credits, he/she will hire lawyers and accountants to make sure that such money is not misallocated. But when your average Joe buys carbon credits for his/her trip to Europe, can you really be certain that the Carbon Credit seller is actually going to plant trees. Perhaps the CCS will use the money to buy gas for his/her Hummer.

Answer 5

It won't work because:



1. CO2 is mostly not a point source problem



2. It is not just an in-country problem like SO2, but a world-wide problem. You run into competitive problems.



3. Account for fluxes is far more difficult. Should you just be required to cut and trade CO2 or are you able to buy credits. (Europe has been increasing their CO2 on Cap and Trade)



4. The carbon credit market is a farce.



5. Hydrocarbons are cheap and limits are easy to get around.



Far more effective to have a carbon tax and use the money for R&D, mainly the "D" part, i.e., Development with some subsides for deployment.

Answer 6

The price of electricity is based on many factors. Removing sulfur is just one of them. I don't have a big problem with them reducing sulfur emissions or using cap and trade to do it. The person who created Cap and Trade doesn't support it to remove CO2I don't trust the intentions of those who are pushing cap and trade for CO2. First, it won't be effective in reducing world wide CO2 more than a miniscule amount. Second it will put additional burdens, bureacracy and red tape for energy companies. Third, it will put too much power in the hands of the easily corrupted bureacrats. Thier end game is elimination of anything emitting CO2. I think it would be giving the fox the keys to the hen house for no other reason than the fox was successful in convincing the gullible that it was needed.

Answer 7

why not put a tax on volcanoes they emit tons of carbon and sulfur dioxide plus many other obnoxious gasses you preachers will never have clean air while they are about and as they have been around since the beginning of time you have a job on your hands everybody wants something it takes energy to make things the unfortunate byproduct is pollution in most cases

Answer 8

It's a SCAM to control YOU,

limit UR freedom,

limit UR rights,

make U broke,

make U a servant of "them",

it will make ur kids and grand babies SLAVES



DON'T BELIEVE LIBS, DEMS OR OTHER FOOLS.

Answer 9

I would expect it to. Of course, we got the usual dire warnings from the usual suspects, and of course you will hear them parroted again right here and elsewhere.



As a strong advocate of the free market, I would prefer a straight carbon tax coupled to reduction of other indirect taxes, but this is the next best thing.



However, the cost/benefit ratio for sulphur pollution is more obviously favourable than for CO2, making it a much more tractable problem.