The Ecological Crisis And Libertarian Socialists
[For the Bfest, Athens, Greece, May 30, 2010]
There is a growing divide among Leftists over how to respond to the threat of climate change. On the one hand many progressive environmentalists are fighting to keep the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in control of negotiations, to preserve positive features of the Kyoto Protocol, and to respond to valid criticisms of carbon trading by fixing the cap and trade framework to be more effective, fair, and efficient. On the other hand, spokespersons for climate justice (CJ) and anti-capitalist (AC) movements routinely denounce UNFCCC negotiations and Kyoto as “pretend solutions” and reject cap and trade policies altogether. I want to spend my time here today to explain (1) why many CJ and AC arguments are based on faulty economic analysis, (2) why support for the UNFCCC and an improved cap and trade post-Kyoto treaty is critical if we are to avert climate change, and (3) why supporting an international treaty with carbon markets is perfectly consistent with calls for eliminating the capitalist market system. I suspect this is quite contrary to what most of you have been led to believe, and not what you expected to hear from one of the few professional economists who has long declared himself to be a market abolitionist.
CJ and AC Criticisms of Carbon Trading
In October 2004 the Durban Declaration was issued by a network of CJ organizations including Climate Justice Action, Climate Justice Now!, Third World Network, Focus on the Global South, and the Peoples Climate Justice Movement. The Declaration stated: “As representatives of people’s movements and independent organizations, we reject the claim that carbon trading will halt the climate crisis…. We denounce the further delays in ending fossil fuel extraction that are being caused by corporate, government and United Nations’ attempts to construct a carbon market.”
In December 2009 a larger network of CJ and AC organizations demonstrating in Copenhagen issued System change – not climate change: A People’s Declaration from Klimaforum09. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) are described in the document’s summary as “market oriented, false and dangerous solutions” which the signatories “reject.” The Klimaforum09 declaration emphasizes that “no false, dangerous, and short-term solutions such as offsetting and carbon trading should be promoted and adopted.” In section 4 the declaration states that the CDM and REDD “only produce new environmental threats, without really solving the climate crisis,” that “carbon trading and offsetting are false and unjust,” and that “allowing rich countries to offset their reduction obligations has maintained the unjust and unsustainable system.”
On April 26, 2010 the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, attended by more than 40 official government delegations, thousands of activists and representatives of social organizations, and hosted by the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, issued the People’s Agreement on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Nature. Among other things the Cochabamba Protocol declared “we condemn market mechanisms,” “the carbon market has become a lucrative business and is not therefore an alternative for tackling climate change,” and “we consider inadmissible that current negotiations propose the creation of new mechanisms that extend and promote the carbon market.” The Protocol specifically condemns REDD which it describes as “violating the sovereignty of peoples… the customs of peoples, and the Rights of Nature.”
What CJ and AC Critics Have Right
Has not the Left been a lonely voice of wisdom insisting that climate change, as well as other forms of environmental deterioration, cannot be avoided if we fail to replace the economics of competition and greed -- a.k.a. capitalism – with the economics of equitable cooperation – a.k.a. true eco-socialism? Are we not the ones who point out that capitalism is an economic way of life that has no future because it will soon destroy the biosphere? Are we not the ones who have explained why even a better regulated and more egalitarian capitalism would still mistreat the environment because: (1) Capitalist economies pollute too much because markets over produce goods whose production and/or consumption generate negative “externalities” like pollution. (2) Capitalist economies fail to protect the environment sufficiently because markets under supply “public goods” like environmental restoration. (3) Capitalist economies extract natural resources too fast because rates of profit for private owners are higher than the rate at which society should “discount” future compared to present benefits from using natural resources. (4) Markets for labor and consumer goods create “perverse incentives” which lure people to take too much of their productivity gains as individual consumption and too little as more environmentally friendly collective consumption and leisure time. And finally, (5) markets fail to generate information necessary to know how high corrective environmental taxes and subsidies should be, while spawning powerful political lobbies with interests in underestimating the size of necessary correctives. (See Robin Hahnel, “The Case Against Markets,” Journal of Economic Issues (41, 4), December 2007: 1139-1159.)
Where CJ and AC Critics Go Wrong
However, for all our wisdom about how the defining features of capitalism bear primary responsibility for turning humans into lemmings, too many on the Left have made themselves irrelevant to responses to climate change in the here and now by failing to understand the importance of putting a significant price on carbon emissions, and by dismissing cap and trade policies out of hand Unfortunately, as long as the albatross of global capitalism remains around our necks our best chance to avert climate change is through an international cap and trade treaty that puts a significant price on carbon emissions, and our best chance to do this equitably is to preserve the Kyoto framework and fix the carbon market that is one of its central features.
The first problem is that many CJ criticisms of carbon trading are simply wrong, because apparently many CJ spokespersons do not understand how the international carbon market works. They think that if a power plant in Japan instead of reducing its own emissions buys certified emissions credits in the international carbon market from a power plant in Canada, but in truth the power plant in Canada makes no reduction in emissions, i.e. the credits are completely bogus, this means that global emissions reductions will be undermined. They think that because there were no reductions at the plant in Japan which purchased credits instead, and no reductions at the plan in Canada either since the credits were bogus, this trade punctures a hole in the cap on overall, or global emissions. This is wrong. As long as national emissions are capped for Canada – as they are under Kyoto – the sale of bogus credits by a Canadian company to a Japanese company cannot puncture a hole in the cap on global emissions. Because the cap on national Canadian emissions will force someone else in Canada to make up for the bogus sale, global emissions reductions will be exactly what they would have been had no bogus sale taken place.
Critics also insist that measuring emission reductions is very difficult, and therefore large scale cheating will go undetected. They fail to understand that measuring annual, national emissions – which is all an international cap and trade treaty must measure and enforce – is not difficult, but straightforward and non-controversial. What is difficult to measure is how much a particular project reduced emissions, above and beyond what would have taken place in any case, because this requires establishing a hypothetical baseline to measure what is called “additionality,” and verify that there was no “leakage.” But as long as sources selling emission reduction credits are located in countries where national emissions are capped any mistakes in assigning credits do not undermine efforts to reduce global emissions as CJ critics charge.
Critics also claim erroneously that whenever a source in a more developed country which has a national emission cap under Kyoto buys emission credits from a source in a lesser developed country without a national emission cap, this necessarily undermines global efforts to reduce emissions since there is no limit on emissions from the country selling the credits. This is also untrue. As long as the Executive Board of Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism awards credits correctly, global emissions reductions will not be undermined by sales of credits from sources in uncapped countries to sources in countries with caps.
The only case in which CJ criticism of the international carbon market as it works today is accurate is when bogus credits are sold by sources in LDCs without national caps. But even here CJ critics refuse to acknowledge that this problem can be easily fixed by capping annual national emissions in LDCs in a post-Kyoto treaty, which can be done without imposing any hardship on those countries by setting their caps well above their current emission levels, as supporters of the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework have proposed.
But beyond incompetent criticisms of international carbon trading which seriously undermines the credibility of the CJ movement, lies a fundamental confusion over the relationship between “system change” and reforms needed today to avert climate change. It is one thing to point out the ultimate absurdity of putting prices on different parts of a natural environment which is, in fact, a single interconnected ecosystem that all life, including human life, depends on. It is another thing when we live in a world driven by market forces to denounce those who work to increase the price of carbon emissions from its present price of zero to as close to its true social cost as is politically possible. It is one thing to insist that nature should belong to no one and everyone. It is another thing to sit on the sidelines while giant corporations seize valuable property rights to store carbon in the upper atmosphere in the greatest wealth give-away in history, while ordinary citizens receive none because one does not believe the atmosphere should be commoditized. It is one thing to point out that it would be better to plan how to use and preserve the natural environment in a democratic, equitable, and effective way rather than leave those decisions to be made very poorly by market forces. It is another thing to ignore the fact that we failed to replace capitalism with libertarian socialism in the twentieth century, which means that decisions about how to use the environment are actually made, and will continue to be made for some time, by market forces where a key price, the price of carbon emission, is completely out of whack. Finally, it is one thing to say: “I don’t want things decided by market forces and private property rights.” It is quite another to say: “Even though things are being decided by market forces and property rights I don’t care what those prices are or who gets new property rights.”
Prospects for the human and other species do ultimately hinge on whether global capitalism is replaced by a completely different economic system -- a system with no elites to prey on their fellow humans and the natural environment, where the associated producers and consumers democratically plan and coordinate their own economic activities based on reasonably accurate information about the consequences of different alternatives. And the sooner this happens the safer and better off both humans and the environment will be. But when dealing with climate change it is irresponsible not to be realistic about time frames. Being realistic about time frames does not mean we must abandon our conviction that humans are capable of correcting our errors and forging new economic institutions to help us develop more democratic, equitable, and environmentally sustainable habits. Being realistic about time frames does not mean we must cease or postpone our efforts to replace a dysfunctional system that commodifies everything but knows the value of nothing with an economic system that facilitates equitable cooperation and environmental stewardship. But being realistic about time frames does mean recognizing that the global economy will continue for some time to be dominated by giant corporations guided by the profit criterion and market forces -- while nature proceeds on its own schedule.
As a self-proclaimed “market abolitionist” I understand why this conclusion is a bitter pill to swallow for all who abhor the commodification of everything, including the natural environment. But we need to look to ourselves. Had we done our work well the human species would have abandoned capitalism and the false illusion that commodification is the solution to all economic problems long before we had damaged the environment to the point where we are perilously close to triggering cataclysmic climate change. Had libertarian socialism replaced capitalism during the twentieth century -- as it should have – we would be in a position to respond to the threat of climate change very differently: Once scientists made us aware of the consequences of inaction we would have had well-tested institutions and procedures at our disposal for making efficient and equitable choices about where and how to reduce carbon emissions, and how to distribute the costs of reductions fairly between and within countries without resort to commodification. But last I checked, participatory eco-socialism had yet to replace global capitalism, and pretending it has does not yield effective policy responses in the world we live in.
Demands: A Tale of Two Lists
Climate Justice Action Demands:
1. Leave fossil fuels in the ground.
2. Reassert peoples’ and community control over production.
3. Relocalize food production.
4. Massively reduce overconsumption, particularly in the North.
5. Respect indigenous and forest peoples’ rights.
6. Recognize the ecological and climate debt owed to the peoples of the South and make reparation.
These were the six demands that Climate Justice Action groups marched under in Copenhagen. They are all fine suggestions. However, they fail to engage the actual struggle going on over what climate policy will look like because they do not address the primary issues that must be addressed now. They are what the Old Left called “symbolic demands.”
Programatic Demands:
What progressives, environmentalists, and CJ and AC activists can and should unite around is a very different list of six programmatic demands.
1. Countries must recommit to the Kyoto path which is: (a) The necessity of binding caps on national emissions agreed to jointly and enforced by an international treaty. And (b) sharing the costs of averting climate change according to differential responsibilities and capabilities.
2. Let science determine the global cap. Right now as best we know we need to stabilize concentrations at no greater than 350 ppm by 2050.
3. Cap emissions in all countries, but very differently.
4. Assign caps according to the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework formula based on cumulative emissions and per capita income.
5. Cap NET emissions, not emissions.
6. Make national governments the “sheriff” for certifying any carbon emission credits, CERs, sold by residents to foreigners.
These demands directly address the fundamental policy areas that governments and constituencies are struggling over with regard to international climate policy. They would set us firmly down the only road that can lead to a just solution to the danger of climate change. And they are realistic, with a reasonable chance of uniting sufficiently powerful political constituencies to make headway before it is too late.
Once we win demand 1 and demand 2 we will be assured (a) the treaty is effective, i.e. it really will reduce the risk of cataclysmic climate change to an acceptable level, and (b) even if bogus carbon credits are traded this will not puncture holes in the global emission cap. Once we win demand 3 we will have (c) distributed the costs of averting climate change fairly and not denied anyone, living anywhere the right to benefit from economic development, and (d) carbon trading will generate a massive annual flow of income from richer to poorer countries without resort to acrimonious debates over climate reparation payments unlikely to lead anywhere. When we win demand 4 existing perverse incentives with regard to deforestation will be eliminated and there will be positive incentives for carbon storage and sequestration. And while winning demand 5 does not make the difficult job of judging additionality and leakage any easier, it protects the integrity of the treaty in any case, and puts the decision in the hands of a sheriff who must answer to those who are harmed – country nationals -- if sellers receive more CER credits for a project than they deserve.
Moroever, there is no reason the CJ and AC movements cannot continue to make their symbolic demands, call for system change, and support these programmatic demands as well. There is only one small problem. The CJ and AC movements must stop rejecting a cap and trade treaty, and must stop their ill-informed carbon market bashing.
Conclusion
It is important to distinguish between CJ and AC criticisms of global capitalism as the fundamental cause of climate change from CJ and AC criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol and carbon trading. I have been arguing the case for economic system change and helping explain why the environment will not be safe until the economics of competition and greed is replaced by the economics of equitable cooperation for over thirty years. However, because our preferred solutions cannot always be achieved immediately, those of us who argue for system change often support and join campaigns to improve outcomes in the meantime.
Just as it makes sense for those of us who call for the end of wage slavery to support workers fighting for wage increases under capitalism, it also makes sense for those of us who call for the replacement of capitalism with eco-socialism to join campaigns for the most fair and effective way to avert climate change while capitalism persists. Our “new world” is both desirable and possible, but because it requires majoritarian support it is unrealistic to pretend it is just around the corner. Unfortunately, responding to climate change cannot wait for system change. And right now only an improved cap and trade treaty can help avert climate change effectively and fairly before it is too late.
It is not inconsistent to fight for reform policies now while calling and organizing for system change as well. Ill-informed criticisms of carbon trading by CJ and AC spokespersons only serves to undermine critical efforts to do what must be done to avert climate change in the here and now.
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
Triumph of hope over experience -- for which side?
By Atangcho, Merius at Jun 16, 2010 21:09 PM
Zinn, Chomsky and others have repeatedly and persuasively argued that rights won are never gifts from above. If one can agree with that, which history would appear to strongly support, cap-and-trade is not an alternative to climate disaster where none exist because activists have "failed" to abolish capitalism and state-corporate entities, or should not be seen as such -- it is properly a protracted descent into calamity.
Problems with programatic demands:
1. The US government has a history of flouting international law, disregarding the international community, when the laws challenge its dominance. So then, in that spirit, what is so special about Kyoto, that has already been at least once put aside? An assumption here is that the international community will actually function as one all of a sudden. (An enlightened and agitating populace will still be necessary to push the UN to functioning status.)
2. Scientists are not necessarily activists, even significant advocates for that matter, and if science were heeded to any significant degree in the halls of Congress, we probably wouldn't even be in this mess to begin with. For all the boldness of a few scientists and the IPCC to speak out, disaster looms. (An enlightened and agitating populace will still be necessary to push the scientifically-determined requirements/recommendations.)
3. The US government under Bush resorted to childish blame games, pointing to China and India as being exempted from climate talks even though, in the case of China, its emissions are the same as the US's, per capita considerations aside, and, rarely observed in politics, American exceptionalism aside as suddenly the US was equal, and ought to be treated as such, in the world. Let's not dwell on Obama's record, but he's hardly proving to be a progressive, never mind radical. His part-African roots have done little for Africa, so how can one reasonably expect Africa to fare as caps are imposed? (An enlightened and agitating populace will still be necessary to push the fairness of the cap system, particularly as concerns the Third World.)
4. See 3.
5. See 3.
To some of these statements, some might say that disaster looms, so we may expect governments and corporations to drastically alter their approach. The political and business elite are after all human and have children, too! History would suggest otherwise, and yes, though this time it concerns the survival of the human species (and its victims), the hubris of the elite is nevertheless reflexive, and the class war perpetual.
Cap-and-trade, even as a better-than-nothing approach, will still require massive public agitation to produce even a modicum of fairness and efficacy in it for humanity, against corporate power that will no doubt overwhelm the process. If this "failed" public is mobilized for modest efforts at change, which it appears likely to be, the failure to abolish capitalism will repeat itself here for climate calamity. As for passing something, anything, that can later be strengthened, when is later? I don't imagine anyone believes a single-payer system, a solidarity-based approach, will be finessed out of the current health care legislation, a market-based approach and gift to the insurance industry, any time soon, except for massive popular agitation to that effect, which in effect destroys what we're now stuck with. Similarly, an ecological approach to climate disaster cannot emerge from a market-based approach to climate disaster. The market would absolutely need to be dispensed with first.
Without critical mass agitation, nothing decent will come out of these climate talks. With critical mass, consenting to the proposals, albeit of a stronger, less corruptable form, in these talks are a waste of that popular effort, unless to steer it in the direction of radical change. History has shown the downtrodden must fight for and demand change to the benefit of the many; change hardly ever comes from above, except to benefit the few.
We are now in it for survival. I can't imagine a worse time for pragmatism or expedience, which would truly be a triumph of hope over experience.
Reply this comment
Re: Triumph of hope over experience -- for which side?
By Roblin, Stephen at Jun 17, 2010 18:58 PM
Of course an "englightened and agitating populace" will be required for any climate treaty to avert cataclysmic climate change in an effective and fair manner. The point I believe Robin Hahnel is making is: if we are agitating for "symbolic demands" -- demands that are nice in principle but divorced from concrete political realities -- then we are simply offering gifts to our opponents.
I think a good question Left activists should ask is: What do oil and gas companies and other corporate sectors that could stand to lose from a carbon market do and do not want the Left to do? They would love to see the Left "Seattle" Kyoto. What this means for them is more exploitation of carbon...for absolutely free (as opposed to paying a price for their exploitation). Personally, I'm not in the business of servicing corporate interests.
Another point to consider is the alternative, which could very likely be climate engineering. There's an article in the most recent Zmag on this topic by Arun Gupta. An effective cap-and-trade system may postpone tampering with climate engineering, something everyone on the Left could agree is a good thing (at least I believe so).
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Triumph of hope over experience -- for which side?
By Atangcho, Merius at Jun 18, 2010 01:57 AM
My point of disagreement is that catering to 'political realities' might tend to delay disaster, but not the suffering (consider the numerous droughts in African countries, India, etc. that have led to crop failures, famines, etc.). We have tolerated the suffering for too long, but now the disaster has come to haunt us.
Nothing coming out of Kyoto will save us because it's hardly the point (see next paragraph). Agitation is wasted on this effort because it buys a small amount of time, if any. The change needed is, by definition, radical: our profligate lifestyle must radically change -- period. That encompasses plenty because even our satisfying our basic needs is incredibly wasteful: shelter (concept of suburbs will need to be reconsidered), food (intensive farming will need to go), then on to transportation, etc. New technologies, such as climate engineering, are indeed a waste of time and to be shouted down, but so, if not more so, are new market instruments. How long before some Ph.D. comes up with a derivative-type concoction to bring down cap-and-trade by allowing companies and countries to cleverly circumvent its measures, assuming it actually worked in the first place, which is a major assumption (Europe already proved otherwise)? [Incidentally, critics say Europe proves it's weak and needs more tweaking and strengthening. How long do we play that game? And it's not at all certain that theory-rich fields, such as economics, can produce a fail-proof system. That system would be a theory away from a paradigm shift, for better or worse.]
My perspective on perceived corporate support for any regulation or reform is that it serves to limit any radical change from the profit-rich status quo. When citizenry start becoming worried about anything adverse, to the extent of maybe actually doing something about it, corporations take note and claim to support reforms because they can, by virtue of a venal political system that they overwhelm, limit the extent of their potential losses within legislation that is binding upon all parties. All of this damage control, of course, while they still denounce regulation and big government and praise free markets. Negotiation on unacceptable terms will inevitably produce unacceptable agreements -- that is, from the people's perspective.
This time there is no alternative but doom. What does it matter at this point if they do or don't engage in geothermal or atmospheric engineering? We can avoid that, but we're still in grave danger. To be even more cynical, we can live through atrocious health care -- those of us lucky enough to have good health, good insurance, or both anyhow -- though it kills tens of thousands a year. We can live through wars and famines because, though it kills millions, it's in faraway places and we're little affected in the west, except for those with consciences unfortunate enough to be bothered. We cannot live through climate disaster because it will likely destroy all. Better-than-nothing doesn't apply here, not that it should have in the aforementioned cases either.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Triumph of hope over experience -- for which side?
By Roblin, Stephen at Jun 18, 2010 14:48 PM
Before I respond to some of your comments, I recommend checking out Hahnel's previous papers on the topic. http://www.zcommunications.org/has-the-left-missed-the-boat-on-climate-change-by-robin-hahnel-1
My point of disagreement is that catering to 'political realities' might tend to delay disaster, but not the suffering (consider the numerous droughts in African countries, India, etc. that have led to crop failures, famines, etc.)
This is not necesarily true. If the caps are set low enough for developed countries and high enough for developing countries, then there could be a substantial wealth transfer from rich to poor countries, perhaps more than current levels of foreign aid. Setting caps at such levels is doable.
Agitation is wasted on this effort because it buys a small amount of time, if any. The change needed is, by definition, radical: our profligate lifestyle must radically change -- period.
I don't see why agitating for the most effective and equitable cap-and-trade regime precludes agitating for lifestyle change. Also, a cap-and-trade regime that approaches the principles outlined in the Greenhouse Development Rights framework would buy us significant time while we work towards lifestyle changes and more radical alternatives. http://gdrights.org/
My perspective on perceived corporate support for any regulation or reform is that it serves to limit any radical change from the profit-rich status quo.
Many corporate sectors, such as oil and gas companies, are not in support of cap-and-trade. Why else would they spread propaganda claiming humans do not contribute to climate change?
This time there is no alternative but doom.
If you believe this, then I don't understand why you're entertaining the discussion. What's the point if its all for naught? That said, scientists continue to urge us to take action...for good reason--we're trying to avert cataclysmic climate change. True, the climate will change regardless, but its a matter of degrees, literally.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Triumph of hope over experience -- for which side?
By Atangcho, Merius at Jun 18, 2010 16:31 PM
If 350ppm is the magic number, then we've already exceeded it. The doom scenario has begun. I never claimed there's no hope, but I see little hope in cap-and-trade financial instruments. (In fact, I haven't even gone as far as raising the issue of the commodification of a natural resource, CO2, even if for what we hope become environmentally beneficial reasons. I'm sure Hahnel will dismiss that as quixotic, considering global realities. Fair enough.)
I find Hahnel's articles on the topic interesting and all his arguments sound good. There are just too many ifs, not least among them that it will work, provided some calibrating here and there. (Again, the example of Europe...). It also assumes we live in a world where the west cares an iota about the Third World, such that it would be at pains to make sure "caps are set [...] high enough for developing countries [...] ."
Fossil fuel exploiters are amongst the largest polluters, so it's not surprising they don't want any change to the status quo. That should be a given. But with all the climate change hype, they will come to the table. It's simply safer for them to, both from an image perspective (obloquy, when unavoidable, is bad for business) and for profit -- again, it's safer for them to have a hand in the process, so they have some control over it, than to continue to be outsiders.
Cap-and-trade might work (I'm doubtful because it's markets, which are given to busts [and corruption] -- remember Marx's major critic -- and, again, Europe...), but we already know what does work. Obama's fuel efficiency standards still don't bring us in line with Western Europe and Japan -- not even close. An infrastructure that reduces reliance on cars, much like in Europe and Japan, is also lacking. (I'm not holding European and Japanese achievements up as the path we need to follow, because even they need to reduce emissions, but it's revealing and disturbing that the US doesn't even come close to those achievements.) Cuba has shown, amongst other achievements, that an alternative to intensive farming is possible. These are measures we should be fighting for. These have a direct and huge effect.
You mentioned Gupta's article on climate engineering -- in general, technological solutions to climate problems. Not saying he would agree, but I would add cap-and-trade to that list -- a veritable economic climate engineering. We don't know where it might take us; we hope for the best, but so far we have just one example and it was a massive failure. OK, so we tinker some until we get it right, hopefully before we get to maybe 400ppm. Meanwhile, what does work is staring us right in the face, and will also take massive public agitation to get done.
You're right, cap-and-trade doesn't preclude the more obvious solutions to climate calamity. It most definitely can, however, stall those solutions. It just so happens that rainforests are found in some of the poorest, most corrupt nations on earth. Rainforests are a way to offset emissions. Pure speculation, but just as with mineral resources in the Congo, just as with rainforest destruction to plant whatever crop happens to be hot on the market, one can reasonably expect further rainforest grabs by corporations if it's a way for them to claim offsets. It's an old story. (Another assumption that seems to guide cap-and-trade advocates, when fairness and efficacy is mentioned, is that we live in a post-colonial, post-neoliberal world, where the plight of the poor will count for something. How is this different from those fighting for "symbolic demands" or "principles" that are nonexistent? Implicitly accepted and imposed hierarchies will not dissolve during cap-and-trade talks; it will still be the rich vs. the poor.)
The ruthlessness and depravity of governments and corporations should not be understated as we consider cap-and-trade. A massive public effort for less ruthless and less depraved, I fear, is a waste of time and energy, especially when that time we scarcely have will be needed for more commonsense and obvious changes to the system, that are no less daunting, but that we're pretty sure will prevent climate disaster.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Triumph of hope over experience -- for which side?
By Roblin, Stephen at Jun 20, 2010 01:05 AM
Let me first say that as an anti-capitalist I would love to reject cap-and-trade in favor of a carbon tax. But I can't for reasons touched on below...
I don't think Hahnel's argument assumes that for cap-and-trade to reduce CO2 emissions we have to "live in a world where the west cares an iota about the Third World." Developing countries have no reason to agree to caps that will stifle their development. Plus, the negotiations are starting from zero caps for developing countries. That's a good position to be in; its not like they're starting from low caps and negotiating higher.
That said, I think you would agree on the following: First, that cap-and-trade is not homogenous, so it can come in many different forms...some more equitable and efficient than others. Second, if there is to be a cap-and-trade, its best that we get the most equitable and efficient, meaning it reduces CO2 emissions to levels determined by the scientific community (certainly not by politicians and economists) and it leads to a wealth transfers from the rich to the poor countries.
If we can agree on this much, then we're faced with the following question: Should we engage in activism such that it pressures politicians to stick with Kyoto and enact the best version of cap-and-trade possible (while we work on changing people's lifestyles, which requires reforming institutions) or should we work towards trashing the entire process and start agitating for an international carbon tax?
Before its reasonable to chose the latter, a few questions must be answered: Can we get as significant of cuts in CO2 from an international carbon tax than we likely can get from cap-and-trade? I think the answer is no. Also, can we ensure that rich governments will transfer a substantial portion of the taxes they collect from polluters to poor countries? Again, I think the answer is no.
In short, a carbon tax would be a FAR superior option in my view, if we could answer yes to the above questions. But unfortunately I don't think we can.
By the way, I'm enjoying our exchange. I apologize if I haven't responded to all of your points. I don't spend much time on the computer, so my responses are a bit rushed.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Triumph of hope over experience -- for which side?
By Atangcho, Merius at Jun 22, 2010 12:49 PM
The feeling is mutual. I'm forced to think more deeply about my opposition to cap-and-trade, but I also receive in your responses, even if rushed, a deeper understanding of how it might be a useful tool in preventing climate disaster.
I'd like to clarify one point I made concerning cap-and-trade measures ('the exotic') vs. consumption measures ('the plain'). I speculated on how rainforests might be used to undermine the exotic; in fact, a documentary (I believe one of the Independent Lens ones) on PBS showed this process is already taking place. Now, to complete my point: the exotic might not prevent but can stall the plain because corporations can now simply claim that they're "investing" in rainforests as a way to reduce their carbon footprint, though they're still polluting the same amount. So you the customer needn't worry and needn't demand CO2 reductions because our carbon offsets in rainforests have it covered. This is a problem.
Think of it even from the individual perspective. When the Al Gore-infused climate hype reached a climax, all of a sudden consumers could pay for carbon offsets for cars, flights, etc. (Full disclosure: I got one for my car.) But there's a problem there (that, incidentally, sent me out to my car the next day to rip off the ridiculous carbon offset bumper sticker): it doesn't reduce my driving, the plain--that is, the wreckless wastefulness. I probably would've been more effective getting a bus pass.
So I believe this speaks to your point, or, rather, question, of whether we ought to enjoin "politicians to stick with Kyoto and enact the best version of cap-and-trade possible (while we work on changing people's lifestyles, which requires reforming institutions)." After cap-and-trade, if all goes reasonably, even perfectly, well, we will be lulled into a false sense of security, which corporations will without a doubt want and encourage, almost as if saying, 'Hey, we have cap-and-trade, so let's just allow it to work--give it time.' That coupled, I'm sure, with highly optimistic reports, that I imagine slick statistical manipulation will realize, from pro-business groups about how cap-and-trade has solved most of our problems.
That's why I take it even further, believing that we ought to abandon the process completely and focus exclusively on agitating for radical change to the plain: dramatic increases in fuel efficiency and power consumption (ENERGY STAR) standards, in public transit infrastructure, in recycling efforts, and a dramatic change to how our food is produced by moving to sustainable farming, following Cuba's lead. Achieving this will be daunting, but these measures will actually reduce CO2 emissions by simply forcing corporate compliance. And since many of these corporations are transnational, they'll have to adapt their entire operation, having the effect of reducing emissions in other countries, such as China. Just having the US reduce its consumption will go a long way towards averting climate disaster because nations tend to follow the US's lead and poor nations tend to aspire to the US way of life. That signals to me that our efforts should be concentrated right here in the US because the rest of the world will likely fall in line. Before Kyoto can take off, many changes are needed domestically--for one, the US government's reserved right to flout international agreements such as Kyoto.
In other words, bump congeniality with corporations. Let's take seriously the fact that a corporation is not a human being. Let's take seriously the concept of a corporate charter and start working on the underlying, correct assumption that these entities exist only to serve a certain public need and, while providing that service, are subject to charter limitations and revocation. Let's not create new market instruments that encourage more trade, more gambling, more markets (reflexively). Cap-and-trade has the effect of strengthening capitalism, and corporations, because it acknowledges markets are the way. Again, let's not have as a goal congeniality with these vile institutions.
[From that viewpoint, I suppose a carbon tax would be what I'd have to support because it doesn't involve markets or encourage trade, at least not directly. But I would still regard even a carbon tax as a final, additional measure serving as a penalty for noncompliance, and I would still keep to implementing it in the US before attempting to roll it out internationally, for reasons specified previously. If you refuse to reduce your emissions, we will tax your profits more heavily, using the tax revenue to offset your emissions through investments in sustainable infrastructure. If you choose to purchase a Hummer, we will tax you, though GM would be taxed far heavier, preferably to the point of nonexistence of that brand altogether. A carbon tax also appears less corruptable because it can be focused on a company's (or individual's) actual emissions, not emissions after credits (off the sort that are inherent in cap-and-trade) have been factored in, such that rainforests remain accessible to indigenous populations, which include not just humans. (I concede on this last point that such cedits or offsets can also be written into a tax code such that rainforest lands may still be bought in corrupt dealings from which autochthones are excluded. But this already seems to be a given in cap-and-trade.)]
Reply this comment
Re: Triumph of hope over experience -- for which side?
By Hahnel, Robin at Jul 14, 2010 05:32 AM
Dear Merius,
I could not agree with you more about this:
"An enlightened and agitating populace will still be necessary to push the UN to functioning status." And the US government as well. The question is what exactly should the enlightened and agitated populace demand to be most effective. That is where I am suggesting that the demands of many in the Climate Justice Movement leave a great deal to be desired, and proposing a far more effective list of demands to agitate and organize around.
Reply this comment
Sources?
By Allott, Nicholas at Jun 16, 2010 19:26 PM
This is very plausible, but not perhaps tightly argued enough to convince sceptics (by which I mean 'Climate Justice'-types, not climate change sceptics, of course). I'd like to see arguments and/or reference to scholarly literature for these claims:
Also, a nit-pick, but perhaps an important one: it's not true that winning the programmatic demands 1, 2 and 3 ensures that "we will have distributed the costs of averting climate change fairly and not denied anyone, living anywhere the right to benefit from economic development". That seems to depend also on a fair allocation of emission caps, not just one in which different countries have "very different" caps.
Reply this comment
Re: Sources?
By Hahnel, Robin at Jul 14, 2010 20:19 PM
Dear Nicholas,
You should be asking me for references to back up my claims.... And you should also be asking for CREDIBLE references from people who are acknowledged experts to back up the claims that people make about Kyoto and the CDM in movies like The Story of Cap and Trade. I have an article that has passed "peer review" and been accepted for publication in the Review of Radical Political Economics.. ZNet, quite reasonably, does not like a lot of footnotes and references for postings. Naturally and article for an academic journal like RRPE requires this. One (of many) problems with academic journals is there is a long wait before articles that have been reviewed and accepted appear in print. But I'd be happy to email you an electronic copy of that article for your personal use if you email me at robinhahnel@comcast.net.
Reply this comment
Too Late
By notme, at Jun 16, 2010 18:40 PM
Its too late to 'avert climate change'. That train has long since left the station. What we can do is to try to limit the amount of climate change, and hopefully keep it from being a process that runs completely out of control.
The concentration of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere is raising the temperature. I don't think most people understand what that means. That means that even if magically this year we cut our emssions of new greenhouse gasses to the point where that concentration did not rise further, then the temperatures would continue to rise.
If we want the temperatures to stabilize at some point, we need a much lower concentration of these gasses than we have today, back down to the point where that concentration no longer causes temperatures to rise. If we want to go back to the climate of 20 years ago, we have to cut our emissions yet further still to get to the point where temperatures are falling back to some previous level.
Most people seem to act like if we cut our emissions, then the temperatures will stabilze at current temperatures. Yet, our emissions are acting like an acclerator in a car. The more we emit, the more the concentration of gasses grows in the atmosphere. A certain concentration results in the trapping of extra heat in the earth that would otherwise radiate off into space. So, what we need to lower is not our emissions directly, but this concentration of the gasses that is the result.
Its like being in a car that's going too fast. Just taking your foot off the gas won't stop the car. That's all we've been debating in Kyoto or the other Climate Change conferences ... whether and how much to pull our foot off the gas pedal.
When did temperatures start to rise? That will give a clue as to the green house gas concentrations that we need to get back to just to stop the increase in the temperatures. Did the tems start to rise in the 80's? It was in the 90's that we started to see records set for world temperatures, so maybe it was long before then that the temperatures started to rise. Maybe the greenhouse gas concentration that was in the atmosphere in 1970 that we need to go back to. Or 1980?
And note I'm not talking about emissions. We'd have to reduce our emissions well below the 1970 levels. The 350.org people have a chart on their website of the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. That shows an increase back around the turn of the century ... the 19th into the 20th century that is. Do we need to reduce our CO2 emissions back to the 1890's levels in order to be actually lowering that concentration again?
My sense is that most people don't realize how bad things really are concerning climate change. And the opening sentences of this piece confirm that. We are not talking about averting climate change. That train has long since left the station. The only question now is how much do we let the climate change?
Reply this comment
Re: Too Late
By Hahnel, Robin at Jul 14, 2010 20:28 PM
Dear Samson,
You're right about what is commonly called the "momentum problem" and that most people have no idea just how much trouble we are in. I take my cue from people like Bill McKibben who is a leader of the 350 campaign. They argue that AT A MINIMUM we must stabilize atmospheric concentrationsat 350 parts per million, or ppm. The scientists 350.org work with are constantly rethinking that number in light of new scientific data. It is quite possible that our "public target" will eventually become less than 350 ppm. But 350 ppm is the "public target" that seems to make the most sense for now.
Stabilizing at 350 ppm will require reductions in global emissions beyond anything that is on the "politically feasible" bargaining table for the moment, which means that getting 350 onto the bargaining table is an absolute political priority. That's what the 350 campaign last year was all about.
Reply this comment
Re: The Ecological Crisis And Libertarian Socialists
By Donahue, Paul at Jun 16, 2010 16:59 PM
Sorry about the typo-and grammer errors. I sure wish this utility had an edit feature.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: The Ecological Crisis And Libertarian Socialists
By notme, at Jun 16, 2010 23:35 PM
Tell me about it. :)
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: The Ecological Crisis And Libertarian Socialists
By Donahue, Paul at Jun 17, 2010 03:40 AM
And, i just realized that this is the ONLY web-page form I've ever encountered that does not support the spell-checker on the Firefox browser. I have very clumst (see waht I mean?) typing fingers ahd (see?) I really depend of spell checkers to catch hitting the wrong key or transopsing characters... ;}.
Reply this comment
Cap-and-Trade and Individuals?
By Donahue, Paul at Jun 16, 2010 16:38 PM
OK, Prof. Hahnel, you almost have me convinced about cap-and-trade as the only proctical alternative for now.
However, much, perhaps most, of global GHG emisson are from many millions of individuals and very small enterprises - notably personal or small-business-owned cars and trucks and household heating fuel. How will these sources be regulated under cap-and-trade?
For example, my own personal effots to reduce my carbon footprint have included choice of home location tobe near work, walkability to essential shopping and public transportaiton. I don't use air conditioning. I but wind-energy offsets from a locally active wind-energy producer (Iberdrola/Community Energy) but am wary that that these may be an unverifiable. I keep heat (prouuced by a gas furnace) set very low in winter. For personal vehicles, I use a car very little and instead use a plug-in electric motor scooter, so my motor fuel use is a small fraction of my neighbors (and unfortunately, my wife too).
My reduced electricity use is taken care of upstream at the power plant of wind turbine, but not the reduced household fuel use. So, where will I go to apply for my carbon credits to sell to my neighbors? Is any cap-and-trade system being considered that includes hte participation of these many millions of small individual users? Am I misunderstanding something about how cap and trade would work?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Reply this comment
Re: Cap-and-Trade and Individuals?
By notme, at Jun 17, 2010 00:45 AM
What your case seems to point out is that some sort of 'footprint' tax might work better. Ie,you are doing lots of things to lower your carbon footprint. So, you should pay a lower 'footprint' tax than a SUV driver who comutes 20 miles a day to work.
Or, maybe in a cap and trade system, each person should get some standard footprint size. If you have a smaller footprint, you have room to 'trade' away the difference. If a person's footprint is higher than the standard, they are required to find others to trade some of the difference to cover their extra 'footprint' size. Ie, some SUV driver should be calling you up and offering you money (or other barter goods) to get you to trade them your unused 'footprint'.
Of coruse, I've never heard anything like this from any of the 'cap and trade' proposals. They all seem to be aimed at businesses and in giving them some way to exucse the large 'footprints' that they have. I'm not sure I've ever seen this go down to the individual level where you would get credti for riding a bike to work. And given the forms to fill out and the documentation needed to be provided, I'm not entirely sure this is a good idea. But, it does seem to be away for you to get credit for the small contributions you are already making.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Cap-and-Trade and Individuals?
By notme, at Jun 17, 2010 01:03 AM
As I re-read Mr Hahnel's piece, I notice he's talking entirely about international treaties. Ie, a nation would agree overall to a certain emissions level.
What happens internally within a nation to help a nation meet its goals is left to that sovereign nation. So, the question would seem to be what sort of rules would America's Congress, owned by BP of course, would put into place to lower emissions.
Sensible options might be a 'gas tax' or a 'carbon tax', so that you don't pay this when youi bike to work, but the SUV driver pays it every time they fill up. Or, a tax on vehicles based on their rated fuel milage.
Of course, given the current US Congress, there would probably be more tax subsidies to SUV owners. While a bike rider like yourself might find themselve under a mandate to buy a certain amount of gasoline from Exxon and BP every year, and charged a fee if you don't.
The devil of anything like this is in the details. For instance, I was reading a Wall Street Journal article in a waiting room today. They were talking about the recent health care bill. It seems a fund was established to help people who've retired but who aren't medicare age pay for health insurance. Then, at the last minute, a change was made such that businesses could tap this fund as well as retirees. Now, consultents are telling every company to get their requests in soon, as the entire fund is likely massively underfunded and will run out of money.
All of this is from one tiny change of the text in probably no more than one paragraph in a massive bill that probably prints out bigger than a phone book. The devil is in the details, and the folks who run things can easily rob us by the way they put those details together, no matter what the overall theme and idea of the plan. Little loopholes and breaks can both be inserted deep into an international treaty where most won't find them. Especially if they change right before signing. And certainly the details of how the national implementations of this idea are put into effect will have major impact. Ie, the lobbyists working on page 1034 of the new legislation can slip in some little thing that says you have to pay extra because you are an un-American type of person who refuses to support our national auto and oil industries.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Cap-and-Trade and Individuals?
By Hahnel, Robin at Jul 14, 2010 21:09 PM
Dear Sampson,
You are right to argue that in all these bills the devil is often in the details, and that last minute changes can make a huge difference. This was true for the healthcare bill, This is now true for the financial reform bill. It would have been true for the climate/energy bill -- the so-called America Power Act -- but that bill is now dead in the water and after the Republicans gain seats in November will never even come up for a vote. But in all cases there is a tremendous amount of lobbying and detail hassling that goes on. And the big problem is that there are more than 10 bad-guy lobbyests for every good-guy lobbyest literally "working" the congressional staffs who are actually crafting the words. It's not that we don't have any lobbyests -- progressive think tanks and NGOs on all these subject areas do this. But we are vastly outnumbered.
AND, our guys are less listened to by "our" representatives and their staffs because the other guys' employers give so much more campaign money.
When we demonstrate in the streets we shout "This is what democracy looks like." Well, one could also say about the bill writing process I just described: "This is what plutocracy looks like!"
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Cap-and-Trade and Individuals?
By Donahue, Paul at Jun 17, 2010 03:32 AM
Samson,
My main point was not that I beleived that cap and trade could be practically extended to individuals, it was both a challenge and a queston to Prof. Hahnel, that cap-and-trade does not, and as a practical matter cannot, be extended to individuals. But, in the developed world, individual fuel consumption is a large part - possibly a majorty of GHG emissions. So, for reasons entirely different from those that Robin argued, I still cannot see how cap and trade will be effective.
But maybe I misunderstand the cap-and-trade process, which is why I asked Robin to clarify. Apprently he hasn't checked his commentary or preapred a response yet.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Cap-and-Trade and Individuals?
By Hahnel, Robin at Jul 14, 2010 20:56 PM
Dear Paul,
The first step is getting an international treaty signed that caps national emissions for all countries -- very low caps for advanced economies, and caps even higher than current emissions for underdeveloped countries so they can still develop. Without such a treaty there is no incentive for any country to reduce emissions nearly as much as we need them reduced to avert possibly cataclysmic climate change. Such a treaty would force the US to reduced aggregate emissions from US territory -- or pay penalties for violating US treaty committments. I was writing about what form that treaty should take and why.
Your question is about what policies the US government could use to make sure it meets its treaty committments and avoids fines and penalties. The US government could simply impose a carbon tax, and could do so most effectively by collecting the tax at the 2,000 points where carbon enters the US economy -- well heads, gas heads, mine sites, and ports where imported coal, oil,and gas come into the US. Or, the US government could do a cap and trade policy. I've argued elsewhere that because of tax phobia in the US the best strategy for progressive environmentalists is to back a bill along the lines of the Cantwell-Collins Bill that is commonly called a "cap and dividend" policy.
How would a carbon tax affect you? Because oil, gas, and coal would now have a much higher price anyone who buys them would pay much more for them. Since you don't buy much gasoline, you would not be greatly affected. Someone who drives a lot in an SUV would find their transportation budget is twice as high as it is now. However, you do buy other things that coal, oil, and gas enter into the production of, and since those energy costs will rise, the prices of products whose production is relatively carbon intensive will rise. And that is a problem, because lower income people in the US will pay a higher percentage of their income in a carbon tax than higher income people will -- which would make the tax structure in the US even more unfair than it already is. In theory one could fix this by using the tax revenues to give rebates to poor people to compensate them for the higher prices they are now paying. But that seems unlikely to happen.
One of the nice things about the Cantwell-Collins cap and dividend bill was that the government would auction off the carbon permits to the 10,000 or so "first users" who would be required to have them, and then 70% of this revenue would be rebated on a per household basis to every household in the US. Equal "dividends" to all households is so progressive that households whose income is in the bottom 70% would get a rebate that is greater than their extra costs caused by the tax, and only the top 30% of households would end up paying more in taxes for their goods and services than they got back as a rebate.
Either way -- carbon tax or Cantwell-Collins -- those like you who have a low carbon footprint would NOT end up paying much more for the goods and services you buy, while those who have heavy carbon footprints would pay much more than before. With Cantwell-Collins you would get back a rebate in excess of your increased costs, while those with heavy carbon footprints would get a rebate, or dividend, that did not cover the whole increase in their costs.
Reply this comment