The Origins of “Cap and Trade”

Foreign Policy explores the history of “cap and trade” — the phrase and the concept. The idea has been around since 1967, but the phrase wasn’t coined until 1994, when Joseph Goffman, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, told Congress that a “‘cap-and-trade’ regime … illustrates a compelling strategy for internalizing the environmental costs of energy and electricity production.”[%comments]

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 11

View All Comments »
  1. DaveyNC says:

    It’s the cap side of the equation that worries me. It could be set according to political fiat and that would do far more harm than good.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. MIKERINO says:

    The Idea was Embraced by Republicans in previous administrations as the LEAST COST method to achieve the desired result. Only Today, with the Crackpot Teabaggers, funded by Coal Giants, do we hear Cap-And-Trade disparaged.

    The other solution is an OUT RIGHT SHUTDOWN of COAL.

    Take your pick.

    The Whole South would be BLUE if 65+ voters stopped voting. That’s an interesting idea.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. J.Stern says:

    It’s the trade side of the equation that worries me. it could provide short-term profit to few, undermine the cap agreements and eventually do good to nobody and harm everybody.
    s. http://www.vimeo.com/7908590
    (from http://www.storyofstuff.com)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Chuck says:

    Cap and trade is a clever ploy to create a trading market for a fictional resource. (Yes, more fictional than fiat money, blah, blah, blah.) The cap is slated to decrease by government decree, reducing the supply of carbon credits over time. What happens when you artificially reduce the supply of something? (Calling it artificial may be a stretch for a commodity that is artificial to begin with, but bear with me.) Traders and speculators and market makers get rich, while consumers and tax payers foot the bill. Count me out, please.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. JoelP says:

    The problem with cap-and-trade is this: the “caps” are given away free to politicians’ cronies.
    If I want to build a new factory, I must buy credits. If someone already owns a factory, he is granted some number based on political contributions he’s made. That giveaway there is the problem.

    An emissions tax is far fairer than a cap/trade scheme. Just start the tax low, and ratchet it up slowly until emissions reach an “acceptable” level.

    The only “advantage” cap-and-trade has over an emissions tax is that it helps preserve the status-quo. However, it is inherently unfair, stifles competition, and thereby tends to lead to slower technological progress than an emissions tax would.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Clayton says:

    I prefer the Cap-and-Dividend idea.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cap-and-divident-not-trade

    But since it’s a short and simple idea without a way for special interests to get a share of federal dollars, it probably won’t pass the US Congress.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. Brian says:

    I must second JoelP. The emmissions tax idea is dead on. De-policitizing the process is absolutely necessary. Give either side of the aisle a nickel and they will take billions.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Joe Smith says:

    The differences between cap and trade vs carbon taxes / fees come down to differences in the assumption about who “owns” the existing emission envelope. Legacy industry, the general public or the government.

    Personally I think the government should own it and run a continuing electronic market in expiring tradeable emission rights where the individual rights would say something like:

    This certificate represents the right to “emit” one ton of carbon between now and 180 days from initial issue of this series.

    Every month the government would start issuing a new series of certificates.

    “Emitters” at the wholesale level would have to buy the certificates.

    It would be a term of the arrangement that the government would cap the price and at that price be willing to issue very large numbers of certificates. Something like: a certificate will not cost more than $5 per ton in the first year and rise by not more than $2 per ton per year thereafter.

    Could even help balance the budget.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0