[Terrapreta] why we must relate to cap and trade

[lou gold]

Duane,

I know what you are talking about.
But the 10 years of talk-but-no-action
occurred in the context of denying that
there is a climate problem. Now that is
changing and the talk will move toward
cap-and-trade versus a carbon tax. I
believe (as a practical assessment of
the current state of climate politics)
that cap-and-trade -- though difficult --
may have more political currency during
a recession than a new carbon tax.

Do you think otherwise?

hugs,

lou

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Duane Pendergast <
still.thinking at computare.org> wrote:

>              Morning Lou,
>
>
>
> Canada has been talking the talk, in depth, on cap and trade for ten years
> now. It's been going on so long now governments are just deleting their
> analytic reports and discussion from public websites. I recall Europe has
> been talking even longer.  Many folks are already advertising offset schemes
> and attempting to collect bucks. All this is having essentially no effect on
> greenhouse gas emissions. Talk is talk and not worth much, especially in an
> election year. Implementation of a real effective scheme is not so easy.
>
>
>
> Duane
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:
> terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] *On Behalf Of *lou gold
> *Sent:* May 14, 2008 8:00 AM
> *To:* Terrapreta
> *Subject:* [Terrapreta] why we must relate to cap and trade
>
>
>
>
> There is a very interesting editorial in today's NY Times
>
> May 14, 2008
>
> Editorial: The Post-Bush Climate
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/opinion/14wed1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
>
> It notes that all three US presidential candidates have indicated that they
> favor some sort of cap-and-trade system. My guess is that cap-and-trade is
> coming. This means than there will soon be a huge pool of monies to support
> activities that are viewed as sequestering carbon.
>
> This is becoming no longer a philosophical or ideological or moral matter.
> It is happening and many folks (the good, the bad, the etc) are positioning
> themselves to bargain for the offset bucks.
>
> I believe that this is why we are suddenly seeing foolish proposals like
> growing and burying trees. Why? Because growing and burying trees has some
> concrete metrics associated with it. There is measurable carbon retrieval.
> There is measurable organic carbon to be buried (or perhaps sunk into oceans
> where big logs don't deteriorate). The point is that the discussion is
> shifting to metrics and the biochar movement better have some way to measure
> its benefits if it hopes to compete.
>



-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080514/bd3bd712/attachment.html