The Story of Cap & Trade
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- The Story of Cap & Trade is a fast-paced, fact-filled look at the leading climate solution being discussed at Copenhagen and on Capitol Hill. Host Annie Leonard introduces the energy traders and Wall Street financiers at the heart of this scheme and reveals the "devils in the details" in current cap and trade proposals: free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from whats really required to tackle the climate crisis. If youve heard about Cap & Trade, but arent sure how it works (or who benefits), this is the movie is for you.
And, for all you fact checkers out there,
www.storyofstuf...
GET INVOLVED:
action.storyofs...
FOLLOW US:
Facebook: / storyofstuff
Twitter: / storyofstuff
Instagram: / storyofstuff
SUPPORT THE PROJECT:
action.storyof...
♻️ The plastic crisis gets a lot of attention as pollution, but the environmental impact of plastic’s life cycle starts long before it ends up in our waterways and ecosystems. Watch our latest animation, The Story of Plastic: ua-cam.com/video/iO3SA4YyEYU/v-deo.html
This is really helpful for my economics essay :).
thats why im here tooooo
Just wondering...where are you getting your resources from????
Thanks for this video - I always had a feeling that there's something fishy with cap&trade, seeing that it is being misused all the time. Your video gave me much more clarity on what's really wrong with it. Goes to my favorites.
nearly 10 years later, Trump pulls from the Paris Agreement
and that's a good thing
@@elpeopuru3003 Amen!
@@MJTXAZ Amen!
"Over 10 years later, and there's still no sign of world ending climate change."
There fixed it. ;)
good. we decreased emissions more because of it. but libs will lib...
@survivalpodcasting
However 1.94C is at the lower end of the IPCC estimates. So if we used the same cal for the high estimate of 4.5C there is still be an unacceptable temp increase.
In facts this is stated in the conclusion where Bounoua writes, "the feedback slows but dose not alleviate the projected warming"
However 1.94C is at the lower end of the IPCC estimates. So if we used the same cal for the high estimate of 4.5C there is still be an unacceptable temp increase.
majority of people in this world wouldn't bother to tree-hug unless they are going to die tomorrow for not doing it
that is why cap and trade is the only way which might prevent such scenario from happening in the first place, it creates incentives
cap and trade works, and this video is outdated
Not outdated, still stands. The UN is sticking to this plan. And this women would have changed, or corrected this if it had changed. She keeps up on this, she believes 100 % in climate change and wants a solution, and this system only makes it worse.
lancetonsow it works to fill government coffers with more tax money.
catholicism, marxism etc -all claim that most people are evil and have to be controlled, manipulated by fear or outright intimidated.
i say corporatism both within government and some corporations themselves distorts our free market with bailouts and legislative intervention which then prevents consumers from having healthier and more responsible options.
the biggest examples are the former and present communist bloc nations themselves-which through state owned or controlled entities are the worst polluters and human rights violators on earth.
we have social media. we have purchasing power. there's way enough influence to be collectively wielded to create unbearable societal pressure on those who selfishly abuse the ecology. Taxation schemes are actually ineffective in comparison because the biggest polluters find ways to avoid the tax while those who don't pollute are forced to pay most the cost.
activists only need to get the word out on which entities pollute so making them less attractive to investors and customers alike.
Hey Lance ! You took it hook line and sinker. Do more research on the weather patterns over the last 10 years. You can start with here in Calgary. See if you can find consistent patterns of warming in our city over that period of time. Just to save you some time. It doesn't exist. But if you want to waste your valuable time on more nonsense. Knock yourself out ! Conservatives can use another good laugh !!
This video is innocently (?) based on misunderstandings.
1 - Cap and Trade is meant to be a SUPPLEMENTAL mesure to combat Climate C
2 - The purpose of C&T is to reduce the costs for private entities through the market
3 - Carbon credits given from the government are not an additional asset given the fact that the polluter HAS TO GIVE THEM BK EVERY YEAR to the authority.
4 - In EU CO2 pollution has been REDUCED even more than the Kyoto Protocol Committment: see Eu Env Agency reports
It's called the Arctic Oscillation - look it up. Average temperatures in the Arctic are actually warmer this year, while Europe, North America and China has a big chill. Meanwhile Australia is really cooking with record temperatures and catastrophic bushfires.
Cap-and-trade is complicated. After all, it worked when it came time to fix acid rain and even other environmental problems. The reason it worked for acid rain was because the pollutant chemicals that lead to acid rain weren't tied to the prosperity of the economy at large like natural gas and other fossil fuels. It may fuel investment in green energy, but then again it may not because fossil fuel companies have lots of money and have consistently shown that they'd rather spend it on corporate lobbying to stop environmental progress than they would spend it to transition to renewable energy.
Maybe it was different when this video was made in 2009. But for those watching today, in 2017 (in relation to California):
Permits are not free, they are sold by the government in an auction.
Offsetting is monitored to try to avoid cheating
Have a look at this if you're interested:
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB398
This is incredibly liberal, but I think this is very moving and everyone should see it.
This is the right attitude of Lie-berals. You do realize that bowels move for a very good reason. Conservatives will show you in the next election what has to happen in order for the country to be healthy again ! Can you imagine putting a picture of an iceberg on TV and then telling everyone it is caused by global warming. This was off the coast of Nfld. You know where the Titanic went down in the spring of the year when weather normally gets warm. The funny part was it happened way back when. The turn of the century. Long before global warming scheme was cooked up by Al Gore and his buddies. You know the ones who make over six figures every time they speak on it. Now you know where the snakeoil salesmen came from in the U.S. Come to Calgary and do some research on the weather patterns over the last ten years, then go and tell the world about all the inconsistent weather patterns. But no consistent warming happening. It's there, do your research !
@@empoleon7750 I am now a communist
It makes no sence that so many scientists are lying!! Besides, climatic changes are evident and dramatic if you visit Latino America, Asia, Africa, Antarctica, etc. Good iniciative Story of Staff
this video is 1000x better than my lecturer
@TreachMarkets I was referring to the climatic aspects of global warming, but you are correct that the hype is about money and power. Sad that the people who crave money and political power have no REAL power, cannot control their own minds or emotions, and have no clue what might make them happy...if they even have a glimmering of what happiness is! We live in a sick society. Thankfully, there are those who know better.
DESC sets fuel rates paid by military units. Currently, prices are $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline and $3.04 for jet fuel. Avgas, a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles, is sold for $13.61 a gallon.
The military consumes about 1.2 million barrels of fuel each month in Iraq at $127.68 a barrel, a price that reflects crude oil refined into usable fuel.
cont...
Also, in Yala (Thialand) a Japanese power company (EGCO) is offsetting its carbon emissions by building a power plant fueled by rubber, wood and waste (carbon neutral stuff). This plant is causing other types of pollution to the surrounding area's air, land and water. Although there is an ongoing dispute over this with the locals in Yala, the focus is on carbon efficiency rather than broader environmental issues concerning all types of pollution.
@KangaKucha - Copenhagen was about negotiations on national policies, none of which ended up binding.
I honestly don't believe in global warming. Climate change exists, but it's cyclical and natural. Carbon dioxide is necessary for life, and the best level of carbon dioxide for plant growth is approximately 4 times higher than amounts in the atmosphere today. Methane and CO2 have been discounted as the causation of climate change.
I have a solar array! I am pondering the addition of a second array- giving up many things I would like to afford the array. I want to do what I can do to help this planet more than I want new clothes, new shoes, boose, cigarettes, soda pop, vacations..... I say no to lots of THINGS so I can say yes to the planet. WHY- I love my grandson and granddaughters and want them to have a cleaner- better world! Everyone should try to do something to say this planet. Something beats nothing every time.
I'm not understanding how the first loop hole is an issue.. "all of the allowances are going to the major industries who were polluting in the first place. It's like they get rewarded for polluting" if the cap is set and met by these industries why does it matter? Smaller companies that don't pollute as much can make due with a smaller amount of allowances and as long as all companies abide by the limit there shouldn't be a problem. As the cap reduces over the years, the companies won't even need to be distributed all those free allowances as they've gotten on board on cleaner energy. The only problem I see with this is the offsetting.
It seems to me that this system takes advantage of the situation rather than solving it.
We would be much better off changing our way's.
For example, we should use; solar power, bio fuel, wind power, harness the power of the sea etc...
There are loads of other options, infact the deisil engine was built to run on veg oil. We need to replace petrol and deisil with boi feul, which can be made from all kinds of different things, of which 'algie' is one of the most efficient (so I believe).
#4 Company razes a virgin forest to plant palm oil trees and they get offset permits. How is that relevant to cap and trade policy? Sin embargo, if supplanting a virgin forest to plant palm oil trees provide net benefits to a sovereign country like Indonesia, then why not do it?
The solution lies in all, the bad is to think that we must do great deeds to change the pollution situation. If all we do not use so many plastic bags in our shop, we turned off the lights, recycle or fail to eat meat once a week .... we do a lot! With regard to consumerism: how much of what we buy is really essential to our lives???
#5 Company plans to increase capacity and overstates capacity to regulators so it can get extra permits and sell them. Even if that is the case, if the number of permits are fixed (capped) emissions can’t go high above the level of the cap. #6 'Cap and Trade is a distraction.' It is not. It is a solution.
The Cap&Trade system works perfectly as long as it isn't watered down by weak and corrupt governments.
U can impose a fixed cap on carbon emissions and let the market determine where reducing emissions is most efficient.
What's the alternative? Some government bureaucrat deciding on who is allowed to pollute and who isn't?
i dont understand the offsetting thing... how can u sell ur cap if you already sold it in the first place?
Another point: happyness, where is it? buying? owning? or maybe something different.
it does this by undercutting company D in any way it can think of, buys it out, or even goes as far as corporate sabotage. And thats not discounting regionalizing or whatnot (IE cable companies) Whatever the method, Company D is now out of business. Company A is now the last one standing, it has a monopoly. Which means it doesn't need to compete with anybody. Which means it can jack its prices though the roof unopposed, which means we're back with the exact same problem we started out with.
@WolfKnowsProductions greenhouse effect is the result of the FACT that certain gases absorb infrared radiation but allow other spectra through. so energy passes through the atmosphere on the way in, is absorbed by the earth and radiated back as infrared which is absorbed. the difference in absorption between the different spectra of light results in warming. this is not debated by anybody. the debate is to what degree we influence this. no one respectable thinks a tsunami did it.
Just to clarify I don't disagree with your proposal, I support regulation to prevent Monopolization. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy/circular logic in deregulating (nearly) everything like so many libertarians/conservatives claim to want, then turning around and claiming regulation as an answer to preventing monopolization.
This video goes under false premises: #1 “Cap and Giveaway”/”Free permits! The more they pollute, the more they get!” Well that is untrue. Initially, firms will be given permits which allow them to pollute the same emission levels for all firms. Firms who pollute less than the amount specified in their permits can sell those ‘surplus rights’ to high-polluting firms.
I like how she blamed Western countries for the problems. So let me get this straight, I'm from a Western country now I'm being punished for things that happened upwards to over a 100 years ago. Very interesting thought process, a little hyperbolic, and for the record I think we should clean up the The world. When China gets on board and India who are the 2 biggest polluters in the world I think the cap and trade could be useful. I don't need a guilt trip from anybody.
WE have the carbon tax in BC Canada. Its a racket because we do not have other choices. They tax us for using gasoline and yet in my area they refuse to put the skytrain transit line so we are forced to use our cars. We have no alternative. It is an outrage!
why Isn't this on all televisions?
If we respected people's individual rights and actually had real arbitrators to protect these rights, there is no way polluters could get away with polluting anyone's air or property.
@linmerch I apologize for claiming you did not do real unbiased research. I'm still doing my research on global warming, BUT, even if humans keep emitting billions of metric tons of carbon gases every year with no negative consequences whatsoever in the short or long term, don't you think it's BETTER for humans to switch to green, renewable energy and stop their fossil fuel addiction which will be depleted relatively soon?
So she means that a few bad parts of the current cap and trade system mean that the system will never work?
I woulda graded the video an A, but leaving out such a huge immediate rudimentary easiest part of the solution (meat industry mitigation) lowers the grade to a C- at best.
Reminds me of DMV driving test. You know how one is allowed to miss 3 questions on the driving test and still pass? Haven't you ever thought that if one misses the "what to do at a stop sign" part of the test, it should be an automatic F?
Mixed feelings about clip. Agree that Cap and trade or Offsets are scams or ineffective. Do not agree with the idea that global warming is imminent BUT should be addressed just for the fact that pollution is bad for everyone's health. If the clip was edited for the global warming, I'd give it a thumb up.
@feastguy101 So you don't think after what has happened that BANKS don't need regulation? I completely agree with you on the Global warming hoax, I've been saying this for months, but we need reform in SO MANY WAYS!
i cant believe people cant see the truth all around them. the world is in deep trouble and we all better start to notice and take action before it is too late.
@Zaxxon2008 and besides the epa (where you get the 3%) only considers direct pollution such as cars and fires, not genetically altered cows, methane slicks, forest fires, and other second degree reactions
@Zapata221 I disagree. First, though it may seem that way, she is not speaking only to Americans. Second, Cap and Trade is not a solution at all. As the video says, it is full of loopholes that will just turn it into another market bubble. It could even lead to more bailouts. But worse than that: it is impossible to enforce. Have you heard of Cap and Dividend? Tax the carbon at the point of extraction; refund money to ordinary people-- & carbon gets costly. The less you use, the more you save.
@Slipknotyk06 Of course it's a choice, and I'm glad that you are responsible and frugal and make full use of what you have. I am really referring to the "business model" of planned obsolesence. The idea that the economy needs consumers to consume and throw away and consume more, just to keep up growth seems ridiculous to me, as I hope it does to you. Who is the economy for anyway??
@managarm1349 Regardless of whether Global Warming is a serious issue or not (I understand the controversy) it is still important for humanity to search for cleaner and more efficent fuel sources. It also wouldn't hurt for us to be more conservative and responsible with the world we live in. This isn't about who's wrong or right, this is about changing for the better.
we are too stuck on letting others get over themselves rather then forcing whats right...and i dont really disagree with that...it comes down to how much we are willing to risk the extinction of %90+ of complex life on our planet...there are many things in the work lately that kinda negate this argument tho...once established i would be comfortable with cap and trade for carbon. regardless i liked this video, thank you for making it.
Why is it that if we are such a great country, we don't learn from other Countries? So many mistakes and it seems we want to try them out!
@timbrrwulf No actually I am a researcher at a fairly prestigious british university. I actually am fairly neutral when it comes to politics, certainly not left, but not particularly right wing either. I do however know an awful lot about the science behind global warming, and what I previously stated is the shared opinion of the vast majority of the scientific community.
Sun flare fluctuations could have a huge affect on global warming, but in this case they aren't, the data doesn't correlate
The first premise of this video is inaccurate. I like your other videos but this one is not as well researched.
Cap and Trade was actually first proposed by the WWF as a market based solution to the problem of acid rain. Pricing of SO2 was established in conjunction with the Bush 1 administration. The program has been highly successful. Businesses have flourished and the SO2 problem has been very effectively addressed, and the whole program has come in costing much less than anticipated.
#3 “Offset permits are created when a company supposedly removes or reduces carbon. They then get a permit which can be sold to a polluter who wants permission to emit more carbon.” Wrong. The true story goes like this: A polluter reduces its emission levels less than the amount specified in its permit.
@TreachMarkets Pollution, and the fact that this is going to cost US a LOT, has not been debunked. :)
I'm not convinced about global warming, either; it's about energy, not just temperature. I'm still looking for those answers.
Can common man voice can be heard by Copenhagen team ??? no way!! I appreciate your concern, let every one contribute or sacrifice that we can, like switching off the unused electronic items, we can try to use public mode for transport etc,,,
I don't think that climate change is false. Though I sometimes wonder as to the severity. If there could be enough evidence to show it without any doubt. And also show that nobody has anything to gain from the widespread acceptance of the idea then I'd be far more convinced.
I think it's deadly to ignore the problem entirel. But, what I know of the situation shows also a great deal of evidence for a counter arguement. I think people need to stop insulting each other and look at ALL findings.
@xxmehmahcookiesxx From 1997 to now the temperature has declined. In the medieval ages temperature rose. We have no effect on the climate. If we do its a negligible amount. Only 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere is "man-made".
If the average price of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel is about $3.23, each service member in Iraq is burning about $88 a day.
While the majority of fuel consumption is by the military’s fleet of planes and helicopters, ground vehicles, too, are notoriously reliant. In general, the Abrams tank, the largest and heaviest of the Army’s vehicles, consumes 2 gallons for every mile, while the Bradley fighting vehicle gets a little more than one mile per gallon.
cont...
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.
@TheSAMathematician well I think think that it's important to be aware of these issues. Your right, there isn't a great solution to them, but being aware has a subtle but everlasting effect.
@phoboskitty
On “The Story of Cap and Trade”
by Yoram Bauman, Ph.D.
standupeconomist. com/blog/economics/on-the-story-of-cap-and-trade/
"Anti-trading hysterics. ...closely related to the anti-market hysterics, ... comes dangerously close to endorsing the movement for cap without trade. This movement makes no sense. Yes there’s a case to be made for eliminating offsets, and yes there’s a case to be made for auctioning off permits, but there’s no good case for preventing emissions trading.
Climate change/global warming may be real or not, but pollution itself is still very real, and that in of itself should be a reason for change.
Which unfortunately will never happen.
I agree. I had watched a tape Al Gore put together..you now, the one with the hurricane on the equator rotating backwards that had Cuba completely under water.
i am at 3:50 and she just said.
"Even the inventor of cap and trade system say it will never work for global warming, HERE IS WHY I THINK THEY ARE RIGHT"
wait a minute what about letting them explain first, WHO ARE YOU WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation,
What can I do? I want to contribute with the change.
Build a socialist organization
The simplest you can do is make your voice heard, e.g. word-of-mouth and your vote.
@survivalpodcasting
Wow I wondered when this particular nutshell would show up. No in fact what you just said is wrong. The ACTUAL paper clearly states that 3 models are used, the base temp being 1.94C (this figure is not even that a major part of the models simply a base to set the models upon). In the 3rd model the negative feed was introduced and showed a result of 1.68C, which equals a fall of 0.26C.
great video but your fact-check page is down
I didnt get a surprise when i saw how many dislike has video, nobody cares bc they have more interest in new things that big companies are producing. Most of the people cares about get stuff, even they dont enjoy them... just get.. buy... Im very frustratedright now . i cant belive what a damage we r doing to the planet. i tried everyday to "think green" but somehow I always think that my help to this planet is nothing
Watching from India
@KangaKucha - Do you know how the temperature cycles work? Have you seen graphs for the temperature trends for the last 600,000 years? Just ignore the graphs that show temperature trends since 1700 or so, they're irrelevant. Yes there's been a little upswing in temperature since the 18th century, but, if you look at the graph for the last 600K years, you realize we're on the precipice (1 or 2 centuries) from a mini ice age that is cyclical in nature. Alarmist much?
I like this video, but it assumes 2 things that to me have not been proven:
First that Global Warming is legit.
Second, that humans can effect it positively OR negatively.
That whole islands going under water is pure bunk. Some of those island that are on Al Gore's model are at a higher sea level than Denver Colorado.
But she is right. It is all about make a select few a lot of money and governments love extra money.
Where does the 350 ppm number come from? Who says 350 is desirable?
I don't agree, first of all, what do you define as free market?
Second, since in a "free" market, everything would be in favour of business, and therefore cheaper fossil fuels would be the better of the two (fossil fuels or ecofuel) since it has more competitive prices, and the other fuel would only be considered the moment the other fuel becomes too expensive.
Great video. Thanks for the information. They who toss this aside probably also don't accept evolution.
It's not that carbon is a "pollutant." It is, rather, that there is a threshold, and we're currently above it.
@thomastholin You neglect the question of quantity.
This cap and trade system is so corrupt.
In less developed countries, places where this 'offsetting' takes place (such as planting fast maturing tree's), whole eco systems are being destroyed to make way to plant these tree's (which are alien to that country).
As a result of destroying these eco systems, indiginoeus people and animals in those countries loose their way of life, unable to hunt and find food and building materials they are left with nothing. Also, where is their/my free permit?
Subbed for the animation thumbnail and unsubbed two videos later for half baked ideas that seem to be a trend in the series. Having said that though, half of it is good and I think her heart is in a good place. :)
@sandslash123 Of course, how didn't we think of this earlier? Just take time during the day in between those 2 jobs, with a mind filled with mortgages, helping your children get good education since the schools aren't doing it, and trying to stay healthy with workout and locating cheaper organic produces, so that you can stop consuming what the corporations are throwing in your face every step of the way, while all they have to say is: "It isn't our fault our marketing is so successful".
@Pat9201 Any citations?
@BaileysBeads Even Micheal J. Fox and a Spice girl? Are you kidding me? So because they're celebrities, they are less foolish than yourself? You've GOT to be joking, right? The mindsets of the people in Hollywood and those like them are the biggest problem with this country.
I agree that cap and trade is an idiotic plan. But honestly people, please search (on youtube or google) for a film from the BBC titled: The great global warming swindle. You will not regret it!
@historypoliticsbb you are seriously going to fetch that into a climate argument. A time when there was hardly any sea ice and seas where well over an 100 Meters higher. I wonder what sort of freaky weather they had, I can't imagine a climate like that being able to sustain 7 billion people
Or did you read the emails from the leading scientists that said they cooked the books, lied and covered it up.
@Slipknotyk06 Unfortunately I only have a 50x125 lot, so I only grow some tomatoes, butternut squash, zuchinni, cucumbers, peppers, eggplant. I plan on getting a couple of chickens...I gave away about 3 dozen tomato plants this year from all of the "volunteers" coming out of the ground. It is always a great choice not to use Federal Reserve Notes. I'm sure you are aware that The Fed Reserve is not part of the government right??
@twillsmusic It already turns out that last winter was the coldest for a long time.
it's funny how we needed to reduce CO2 emissions to 350ppm but now (10 years later) we're sitting at about 415ppm and are seeing the beginning of some of the worst climate disasters
Like what climate disasters?
@@thomaspopescu9952 *gestures at australia, puerto rico, houston, etc*
@jaredknight8838 you're using hurricanes as an example? Really?
You can really see now wild fires and floods rising sea levels
We never will change we just won’t 😢
Yikes! Thank you for bringing this issue to everyone's attention. It is important information that everyone needs to know. Climate change is a ticking bomb and needs proper solutions to correct the damage we have done and prevent more damage. I want a healthy environment for my grandchildren and I will to all I can to insure that. Thank you for all the good you do Annie!
Simple solutions: set a limit, no exceptions!
This whole video was about exceptions. If there are none then cap and trade would work great.
Ya ....by my personal view.. im also agreed that this whole video is regarding exceptions but it can help us also in many ways... For this really I want to know good vibes regarding this system......
What could go wrong if profit-driven corporations gained control your city's public water systems? Watch our latest animation, The Story of Water! 👉🏽 ua-cam.com/video/04jTleV0gK0/v-deo.html
Thanks for the explanation. I don't think many people really understand what the Cap & Trade really means, your explanation is simple enough for everyone to understand and clearly show us what is the problem of it.
How come we don't see her in the presidential candidates?
they don't let folks that they don't own run for president. They own the TV networks you need to get noticed nationally and we have seen time and time again that they simply don't give you time if they don't want you
Yeah, I'd vote for her!
she gave up
To be honest, in my opinion none of your arguments against cap and trade really make any sense (sorry this got so long):
1. First argument (somewhat implicit): "Cap and trade is bad because some of the people trading the certificates would speculate and make money/get rich in the process".
Well, speculators do not always get rich, sometimes they also lose money (e.g. when a bubble bursts).
More importantly, if cap and trade is both effective in achieving its goal (reducing carbon emissions and thus helping solve the climate crisis) and also cost-effective (able to achieve this goal at lower cost to society compared to alternative ways like regulation), does it really matter if some people make a living trading those certificates? The amount of money traders or speculators make would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the main effects of cap and trade (making goods more expensive in proportion to the amount of carbon emission their production creates and therefore giving companies a real incentive to reduce those emissions).
2. "Cap and trade is bad because big polluters (companies that are emitting a lot of greenhouse gases) are getting certificates for free".
Well guess what, without cap and trade (e.g. right now), big polluters are already getting the right to pollute for free, since they do not have to buy any certificates at all (since certificates do not exist). So even if you were to give all the certificates out for free, it would not be worse than the situation right now.
More importantly, this is not really an argument against cap and trade *itself* - it is an argument against a certain *way of implementing* cap and trade. Cap and trade works just as well if all certificates are auctioned off, so every company would have to buy the certificates corresponding to its emissions. This also would (obviously) create additional government revenue - which could be used to lower other taxes (for example), so that the total burden for producers and consumers would remain the same.
3. "Cap and trade is bad, because climate change will have very serious consequences for the people living in poor countries that did not contribute to the problem"
That (the negative consequences of global warming) is actually not an argument *against*, but *for* cap and trade. Economists have argued for years that market based schemes (like a carbon tax or cap and trade) are able to achieve the goal (reducing the emission of greenhouse gases) at lower cost to society (less loss of individual freedom and monetary wealth) compared to more conventional policy instruments (e.g. the government passing strict regulations regarding those emissions).
The corresponding argument is covered in advanced economics classes in college, and it is not overly hard to understand for someone with some intermediate knowledge in economics, but admittedly most people will not be willing to invest the time necessary to educate themselves enough to understand it. However, I would argue that it is better to trust experts if they *are truly experts in their respective field* and *agree* on something, rather than just ignore what scientists have to say.
And while the main economic argument for cap and trade is theoretical (e.g. relies on logical arguments), several empirical studies (e.g. about the emission trading scheme in Europe and those of some US-states) have confirmed that the predicted effects are indeed realized in the real world.
Cap and trade is a real solution to the problem of global warming, it is the best solution we currently have, because it reduces emissions in the best way (where it can be reduced at the lowest cost to society).
4. "Cap and trade is bad because some offset credits would be created fraudulently (without really offsetting pollution)."
Again, like (2), this is *not* an argument against cap and trade in general, but against a *specific way of implementing* cap and trade. Cap and trade works perfectly fine without any offset credits.
5. "Cap and trade is bad because we cannot agree on a global cap".
Granted, the ideal solution to global warming would be to have all countries participate in one large cap and trade system.
But that is also true for any other solution to global warming (e.g. regulations) - it is a global problem, so no country can solve it on its own. That, however, is not a (good) argument for doing nothing until some "global deal" is achieved - especially rich countries (e.g. members of the OECD) can do a lot by themselves. If all members of the OECD would have functioning cap and trade systems, with a reasonably ambitious path of reducing emission certificates over the years, this would have a large positive impact with regards to reducing global emissions.
6. "Cap and trade is bad because it creates a false sense of security, so less other action will be taken to really reduce emissions"
This argument relies on the assumption that cap and trade does not really work - which is a false premise. It does work, it reduces emissions, and it does so at a lower cost to consumers, producers, society, than any other policy tool we know (e.g. traditional regulation). If you do not like a certain *way* in which cap and trade is/was introduced in form of a law, support the introduction/expansion of it in a better way (e.g. without giving away certificates to companies and without credits for offsetting emissions).
Since global warming is a problem which involves a long time horizon and the cooperation of a lot of countries, it is already really difficult to fix it. Ignoring science (in this case, economics) about how best to achieve it will just make it even more difficult.
This video is highly misleading. Do not listen to this woman. The video portrays Cap & Trade as though it is a program that benefits polluters. It does not. It literally sets a limit, or more appropriately a "cap", on what they can produce. What used to be a free commodity to polluters is now a limited resource, which in effect means the externalities it causes now has a price. The cap is then reduced every year by governments, thus making the permit more expensive and incentivizing polluters to find clean alternatives to their means of operations. It has been successful in addressing other externalities that markets can produce.
The video closes with a preposterous claim that Cap & Trade "protects businesses as usual" and that it gives us a false sense of progress by convincing us to drive less, change our bulbs, "while they take care of the rest" - implying they will continue to pollute at increasing levels, which they won't because they are literally capped from doing so. I am going to correct what this video gets egregiously wrong on this point. Cap & Trade makes carbon a limited commodity, like most other things in this world. As a result, it causes the ENTIRE economy to reorganize itself to adjust to this new reality, all through the efficient means of price signals. Cap & Trade, or even a carbon tax, will allow us to consume any good or service without having to think about what is most ecologically friendly (in terms of carbon emissions). Why? Because they entire supply chain behind that good or service has been readjusted accordingly to the new price of carbon. It effectively targets the source of the problem. And no, this does not "strengthen the case for utilities to continue to use coal", as it does precisely the opposite, especially since coal is the greatest contributor of carbon.
I suggest listening to a resource more creditable and in touch with the realities of economics, such as the works of Professor William Nordhaus from Yale University, whom won the Nobel prize recently in this field of study. Economists are generally in favor of a Cap & Trade or Carbon Tax.
Thank you for these inspiring videos! I'll be showing them to my children and friends.
I really like the videos but I think the woman is still a bit naive. She's talking about 'our governments', the rich and powerful 1% who run big corporations have governments in their POCKETS...
This video has a lot of flaw and is very one sided to "cap and trade = bad". If it wasn't for collecting carbon credits by carbon sequestration (pumping CO2 into the ground) or planting trees then these would not be profitable at all and no one would have much incentive to spend money to do it in the first place. Also, completely killing the coal industry is a bad things since local economies would entirely collapse without coal, so weening off coal and increasing jobs in other sectors that don't require degrees is the only way to do it without sky rocketing unemployment. Coal power also gets dirt cheap power rates where renewable energy get premium price power rates. This leaves coal plants having to pay for extremely high regulations, lots of operation costs and return has to sell their power for dirt cheap, a lot of times this puts coal plants out of business. I'm all for cap and trade and slowly moving towards more renewable sources, nuclear is probably the most reasonable option since renewables make shit energy/acre compared to nuclear power.
I could not agree more. Overall, this video is quite confusing and illogical with so many unsubstantiated claims in it.
No what she's saying is don't subsidize the coal industry because it incentivizes the coal industry to find smarter and better alternatives.
let's tax the air.
Fun fact that's already a thing it's called Carbon Tax
Oh PLEASE!
It's about CARBON CREDITS and MONEY. Period.
Stop being so gullible.
Lets all switch to nuclear energy folks; it's the greenest energy available today in these times of energy crises.
When a man with power allows his greed to prevail over his conscience...the world is screwed.
What did you want to happen when the system itself rewards people to cheat and be dishonest? the problem is not laws or regulations, the problem is the system itself, as long as there is money for someone iin the process, it doesnt matter if its for killing babies, someone will do it... Its pure logic...
thevenusproject dotcom
Very interesting explanation! You made the topic feel fun