Home | About | Donate

Carbon Markets: Foolish Climate Policy that Big Banks Can Love


#1

Carbon Markets: Foolish Climate Policy that Big Banks Can Love

Jim Walsh

The most revealing thing about the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) might be the location Virginia Governor Ralph Northam chose to hold the final hearing on whether his state would join the regional carbon trading program: The Bank of America building in Richmond. It was a telling move.


#2

Investing in Oil and Gas Development, is like encouraging people to get Cancer.

There must be legislation enacted to strongly prohibit these types of investments by imposing high taxation rates on exploration, extraction, and on the sale of the finished product.

Investment in all forms of renewable energy must be encouraged with the use of tax breaks to the corporations who invest in it, and the consumers who utilize the technology.


#3

There is a lot of data to plow through to understand the effect RGGI has had on emissions and the amount of money from RGGI that has gone into supporting renewable energy. Food & Water Watch does not seem to have done the necessary research to reach its conclusions on RGGI. I think RGGI should be strongly supported until actual information is provided to show it is ineffective. RGGI is supported by the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations. While I support much of what Food & Water Watch does I am not on board this campaign against RGGI.


#4

You cannot prohibit investment of legal enterprises that doesn’t make any legal sense.


#5

Yet another example of why we should encourage carbon tax legislation instead of cap and trade programs.


#6

Thank you Paul for your legal expertise.

Prohibit was the wrong word to use.

Discourage is the word I meant to use.


#7

Food & Water Watch is against a carbon tax. They did an extensive report showing that the British Columbia carbon tax does not accomplish anything. They are making the same claim about cap and trade programs but have not done rigorous research or cited such research to support their view on cap and trade.


#8

Based on my understanding from an Environmental economics class I have taken carbon tax programs are the most effective strategy moving forward.


#9

You don’t need a law degree to recognize that you cant just ban things that aren’t illegal. If you want to discourage a particular device you also have to submit proof, and for investments this doesn’t really work. If theres a product that is undesirable by society congress typically applies an excise tax on the product in distribution. This is why taxes on cigarettes are so high. However to tax this product on investment would be a form of double taxation and therefore unconstitutional, which is why you don’t see additional taxes on equity for tobacco companies.

Additionally if you are taxing stock you are not taxing the company itself, but rather the shareholders who may not actually be part of the company. Given that these taxes are already established during distribution or at the sale of the product you cannot apply another tax.


#10

And so what kind of plan regarding GHG reductions is Food and Water Watch for?


#11

Then from my perspective, Food and Water Watch, an organization for which I have respect, have their heads up their butts. For an organization that is supposed to be about fighting corporate power in our food chain, they called this one all wrong. Cap and Trade exists to allow corporate polluters to keep on polluting while making money off it: buying and selling shares of CO2. OMG.

Really?Paying other people not to pollute where they are already not polluting, just so major polluters can keep on polluting? Give me a break.

This report shows that BC’s carbon tax has been quite effective. The problem is that there has been no recent increase in the tax: https://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/british-columbia/

This page discusses all the nations/regions currently using a Carbon Tax as a means to successfully cut CO2 in the atmosphere: https://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/

Cap and Trade has not proven to actually reduce CO2, but it has proven to be incredibly popular among policy makers and their donors, because it creates a whole new industrial market on which to trade and further redirect income upwards. Cap and Trade is about trade–not capping CO2 levels. There’s a reason energy producers are working regionally to create cap and trade systems, because it hasn’t been able to pass muster with Congress after four attempts over 20 years.


#12

Food & Water Watch is for using regulations of utilities.


#13

I think the best thing to do is read the Food & Water Watch report on the British Columbia carbon tax and go from there.