Cap-n-Trade . . . or Cap’n Crunch?

There’s been much discussion in the US and abroad about moving to a cap-and-trade system. How can I put this term in layman’s terms? Okay, I’m a dog owner, so let’s give you a real life scenario (if there’s such a thing in LA): There are 10 dogs in our neighborhood and none of us can afford a dogwalker, so we take turns walking each other’s dogs. So, we all get 4 chips, each good for one dog walking hour. If I walk the neighbor’s dog, I get a chip, and vice versa. Maybe I’m delaying doing the housework or working in the garden, so I keep walking other neighbors’ dogs, collecting more chips, which I may need if I leave town for a week and need lots of folks walking the shih-tzu while I’m gone. But there’s a problem: dogs leave a mess, and oops, some of us aren’t so good at picking up the dog poop. So the neighborhood association sends us all nasty-grams and the amount of dog walking chips are reduced . . . so we need to get more creative . . . one neighbor on Occidental puts her dogs on a treadmill, I tie the garden hose to my shih-tzu so he can water the plants, etc. . . . we all have to get creative as to how to exercise the dogs to reduce their waste or well suffer the fate of Santa Cruz, where dogs are banned from walking in parts of town (oh, I could start a ranting blog on this—but I digress—again).

Okay, maybe not the best analogy, but you get the concept—in cap-and-trade, companies that pollute can trade or buy carbon credits—the government reduces the number of carbon credits each year, with the idea that companies, utilities, etc., will find new clean ways of obtaining energy.

Cap-and-trade has caught on in Europe, with CEOs there saying they were behind this system and are urging the USA to get on the bandwagon. It won’t be easy, in the US, however, and results in Europe are mixed. There’s the argument that companies will just pass on the costs to consumers, and some areas could get even more polluted while other areas get more “green.” And the recent Waxman-Markey Bill floated in Congress is either a tepid or disastrous attempt, depending on one’s point of view. For example, while the bill pushes alternate sources of energy, hydropower and nuclear energy aren’t considered “clean,” despite the fact they emit ZERO emissions (my stance on nuclear may get me in trouble) . . . others are upset that 85% of the credits will be given without any cost to the electric utilities . . . with the result that well, we could end up with even MORE air pollution.

And like many bills that flail through Congress, Waxman-Markey, to some, has been devoured by special interests, most prominently the utilities. Finally, the coal industry could get a US$10 billion carbon capture sequestration research bootie, caps on greenhouse gases and carbon emissions are too weak, and many complain that requirements to create renewable energy sources are way too weak . . .

Cap-and-trade is not perfect, but it’s one part of the puzzle that we need to look at if we’re going to stall global warming. But cap-and-trade as proposed by the current Congress will be like Cap’n Crunch cereal—looks good, you want a lot of it, but in the end much of it is artificial and there’s just no value—and it could even harm your health.