This section is for discussion of advantages and disadvantages regarding the issues surrounding ‘Fee & Dividend’ verses the ‘Cap and Trade’ proposal being considered. We are looking for ideas and reasoned arguments pertaining to how best to understand problems and issues pertaining to the policy initiative. What might we expect to be challenges, and what may be the solutions. We do not pretend in any way that solutions do not have ramifications but are merely attempting to handle a difficult situation with best policy considerations.
Moderation policy:
We will moderate comments in order to keep the conversation relevant to how to promote Fee & Divided. Comments on the periphery such as what is the best technology, or ancillary methods not directly related to this discussion may be best handled on other web sites. First & last legal name on all comments is appreciated when no reasonable conflict exists.
Fee & dividend is the fairest practical option. There is no moral reason why anyone should have the use of more energy than any other. Those that use more should pay for it and the dividend will subsidise those (the poor), that use less.
Fees should operate “at source” in terms of actual tons of fossil fuels mined and consumed in mining (not just that which is sold). Thus tar sands burnt above ground or underground in the extraction and processing to salable fuel must also be taxed. This will force efficiencies and reflect the true cost to the evironment.
Science informs technology and technology (the manipulation of physical things ( i.e. matter, energy and information) informs economics. Present economic theory is predicated on continual growth, which is scientifically unsustainable. We need scientifically informed economists and longterm sustainablilty (yet to be elaborated in practical terms) needs to be built into all business plans.
PS: My probability %s are SWAGS: wild guesses.
[Response: SWAG (gifts) My feeling is that we need to concentrate on speaking with people. No one has the money, or is willing to produce the promotional materials, that I know of.]
John,
As you know, I sent a request to 400 of my colleagues to view this site. I then sent a second request to view the Q&A to these same 400 colleagues. It appears that I was able to get four people to sign. Ugh.
As you also know, I did hear some reservations about signing this petition because folks who do wish for carbon mitigation think that only cap and trade has any political will. Some feared signing this might sabotage that effort and lead to no mitigation solutions.
Finally, I think apathy is the main culprit. People are very busy and the most difficult thing to do is to motivate somebody who already has much on his/her plate.
My suggestion: Climate change and the importance of carbon mitigation have to be made personal. Perhaps we need to show the dollars and cents impact on individuals in the following scenarios:
1) No mitigation solution
2) Fee & Dividend
3) Cap & Trade
4) Carbon Tax
Is this something that could be done?
BTW, I do have a blog post that relates somewhat to this. I tried to get conservatives to see how doing nothing is actually worse for them than cap and trade or other solutions. In essence, I tried to make it personal with their worldview in mind.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/how-to-talk-to-a-conservative-about-climate-change-v-2/
[...] government will have to step in to protect us before it is too late. The solutions include: Carbon Fee & Dividend, Emission Trading (a.k.a. Cap and Trade), or Carbon [...]