You know what cap and trade is, right? Something to do with ... carbon markets? Or carbon offset? Global warming?

Okay, I've narrowed it down to carbon-something. Trading emissions? Huh? How is that possible?

I'm not in the minority here: 76% of us haven't a clue what "cap and trade" is. if you're one, you're not alone. The good news is that in 4 minutes you'll know all about it. Watch the video.

(Photo credit:pfala, flickr)

It sounds so uncontroversial at first. The "cash for clunkers" program would pay an incentive to consumers who traded in a clunker (a gas-guzzler or other old, inefficient car) for a hybrid or fuel-efficient vehicle. There are two competing bills in the House and the Senate, which President Obama has said he supports, would pay between $2,500 and $5,000 toward the purchase of a new car, depending on the age of the clunker and just how inefficient it was. The House version pays more consumers who purchase U.S.-made cars; whereas the Senate version pays more for relatively "younger" clunkers. Both are touted for their environmental responsibility, as well as their side benefit: an auto manufacturing stimulus.

Programs currently implemented in Germany, Texas and California have, indeed, spurred new car sales. Wait, hang on. How is this green? Steven Levitt argues that the incentives are all screwed up; the House version would, he says, encourage car owners to drive their gas-guzzlers longer to reap the rewards. George Monbiot, considering the U.K. version of the program, runs the numbers on how much the government would pay to save a ton of carbon emissions and comes up empty, calling the idea "hand-outs for the car firms, resprayed green to fool the incautious buyer" and deciding "you’d get almost as much value for money by reclassifying ten-pound notes as biomass and burning them in power stations." He points out that the consulting firm engaged to study the program, McKinsey, didn't compare the cost/value of programs meant to encourage public transport, walking or biking, sniping, "a McKinsey consultant wouldn’t be seen dead on a bus."

And who says a car manufactured before 2002 is necessarily a "clunker"? For years, my sister drove a tiny pre-1990 sports car, which got an astonishing 40+ miles to the gallon. Under this program, she could have traded in her car for a new one that was far less efficient, and gotten paid for her troubles.

But it is Robin Shreves at Sustainablog who delivers the real indictment of this program, in a question: where are the old cars going? It seems they will, indeed, be scrapped. And there is nothing at all green about millions of clunkers slowly rusting away, leaching battery acid and ancient oil and God-knows-what-else into our soil. Pay to toss out the old and make a new one instead for marginally better mileage? Isn't that the problem with our throw-away economy in the first place? This concept tells me that our leaders are worse than ever, institutionalizing planned obsolescence. Oh, dear.

(Photo credit:sarah gilbert)

It's the year 2020 and along with your usual electricity, heating, and gas station credit card bills you now also receive an update on your personal carbon budget, and uh-oh, it looks like the family is a little over this month. Unless everyone in the family starts remembering to turn off lights, you're going to have to buy some carbon credits from your neighbors—and how embarrassing will that be?

No, this isn't the beginning of a near-future science fiction novel. It's the possible outcome of a recent trial run by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce in the UK. The trial showed that giving people a limited personal carbon budget caused a 5% reduction in carbon footprints with a potential savings of up to 20%.

While some might see this as privacy invasion, I love the idea. Recycling has been around for years and yet if you look into the garbage of many households, few families fully comply. If we're going to get serious about reducing carbon (and other greenhouse gas emissions), someone is going to have to force us all onto strict carbon diets. 

There are a few challenges to solve before such a scheme could be put in place, including:

Continue reading Personal carbon budgets: yes or no? ›

(Photo credit:net_efekt, flickr)

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, BP's executive director Tony Hayward expressed the need for a broadened emissions trading program, and a worldwide standard carbon price. Hayward also said that the price of oil needs to rise in order to encourage investment. Currently, individual governments establish a cap on the amount of carbon corporations are allowed to emit into the atmosphere. The European Union has a carbon trading system in place; the United States has no federal program, though several states have enacted carbon cap-and-trade systems of their own.

There are signs, however, that the current administration will allow tougher regulations on companies that pollute. President Obama said he will review a waiver request that would allow a dozen states to make car manufacturers adhere to stricter greenhouse gas standards.

The EU system is not perfect, however. There have been allegations that corporations have been receiving carbon permits for free, essentially negating what is supposed to be a penalty for excessive polluting.

Though the carbon trading system exists, it clearly is quite flawed. Perhaps intelligence gained at the Forum in Davos will help create a clearer path forward.

(Photo credit:pfala, flickr)

Should we believe in global warming? Of course we should. The question is, what will we do about it?

In December 2009, an international meeting will be held in Copenhagen to set policy governing greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming. Europe hopes the US will be there and join them in a transatlantic carbon market. Experience with the Kyoto protocol makes them a wee bit edgy about what they can expect from the U.S.

In Kyoto, 183 nations came together and ratified an agreement to reduce overall emissions between 2005 and 2012 to 5% below what they were in 1990. The United States signed the agreement, but never ratified it. Kyoto will expire in 2012. The Copenhagen meeting will decide what's next. The countries bound by Kyoto have established an international carbon market, a "cap and trade" system. They'd like the U.S. to join them this time.

Continue reading Cap and trade: US carbon market quo vadis? ›

(Photo credit:Mikko Itälahti, flickr)

Pepsico is worrying about your orange juice's carbon footprint so you won't have to. Growing, processing, and distribution of half a gallon of OJ puts 3.75 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Most of that is from fertilizer and natural gas used in orange grove management and juice production. What does this mean for the brunch bunch? Well, two mimosas use about a half cup of OJ and three quarters cup of champagne.

A back of the napkin calculation shows that you can mix thirty-two mimosas from your half gallon of Tropicana. Umm, let's see... divide 3.75 by 32 gives us the fraction of a pound of CO2 per mimosa, now multiply by sixteen to get the ounces and voila! The orange juice in the two mimosas that you take out onto the deck on a sunny Sunday morning costs the planet about one and seven-eighths of an ounce of CO2. The numbers aren't in yet on the champagne.

Continue reading Carbon footprints at the breakfast table ›

(Photo credit:Zesmerelda, flickr)