First the sense, from Tim Haab, in his post Environmental Economics: If this is Orwellian, then call me George:
From the UK Telegraph:
Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.
Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.
If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits…
Ruth Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, told the Daily Mail: “This is all about control of the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about. It’s Orwellian. This will be an enormous tax on business.”
The proposal I’m about to put forth is not new, nor is it polished. Instead, it’s a first attempt to generate a discussion. Let’s set up a gas credit market. Here’s how my version would work.
1) Cap gas consumption at current level–hey it’s a start.
2) Issue gas consumption cards (GCC) to th
e public. Every U.S. citizen of driving age will receive a card (similar to a drivers license).
3) Credit each GCC holder with a monthly allotment of gas. The total allotment is equal to the current gas cap established in 1).
4) Set up a GCC clearinghouse (similar to ebay) where GCC holders are free to buy and sell gas credits.
5) Every time a driver fills up, they must swipe their GCC and be deducted the appropriate number of credits. This is in addition to paying for the gas itself.
6) Annually decrease the gas cap by 5% (or some percentage).
7) Temporary GCC cards can be sold at gas stations to avoid any problems with running out of gas credits. Sort of like buying calling-card cell-phone minutes.
Correcting market failures/externalities through efficient pricing of the associated goods is not Orwellian; it’s prudent. Failing to correct market failures is Mad Maxian.
Sounds like a great system to me. Cap the total consumption, reduce the cap on a predetermined schedule, and let individual consumers and the market make all the allocation and pricing decisions however they want. This puts control of the strategy (“use less gasoline”) into the hands of the policymakers and voters and keeps them from “picking winners”, something they seldom get right. It also puts the tactics (“buy and sell credits freely, let the technology and pricing”) in control of the free market and keeps it from setting long-term goals, which it almost never does well. In other words, it uses the policymaking apparatus and the free market as a tools and doesn’t let or force them to do things we know they stink at.
Of course, there will be objections about how this will still let obscene things to happen, like rich people will driving insanely huge SUVs, etc. Frankly, I don’t care. As long as a cap and trade system does what it’s intended to do–reduce overall gasoline consumption or CO2 emissions, for example–then I can easily live with
Others will scream about cheaters and corruption and inefficiency of the overall system. The US economy is riddled with cheaters and corruption now (check the business headlines almost any day of the week), and the level of efficiency we see is abysmal, thanks in no small way to the unpriced costs of fossil fuel usage. I’d rather do something smart about it and try to fix those issues while doing the things science tells us we must–use less oil and emit less CO2.
Oh, come on: columnist compares driving efficiency with teaching religion:
We’ve disagreed with Detroit News columnist Manny Lopez in the past, but his most recent column is absurd. At issue is a bill in the Michigan State legislature that would require adding an environmental component to driver education programs. Lopez is against this. OK, fine. But his reasons are illogical. How many wrong points does Lopez make? Let’s count, shall we?.
Lopez says that making young student drivers learn about fuel-efficient vehicles, carpooling and public transpiration is “environmental activism.” He also believes teaching students these facts won’t help them to make better decisions. Uhhh, say what? Is he really arguing that people can make smarter, more informed decisions with less information? We can only assume he employs the same logic when he pens a new opinion column.
Lopez also writes, “Since these courses aren’t in the schools and parents have to pay for them out of their own pockets, they shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s religion — and trust me, environmental activism is a religion.” BS. Avoiding jackrabbit starts and stops saves fuel. It’s also safer to accelerate and decelerate in a responsible manner. Science, not faith, can prove this. Does anyone at the News even read what Lopez writes before it’s published?
And then, finally, this: “Most young people don’t have the resources to choose what they get to drive, never mind shop around for one that has the ‘attributes of a fuel-efficient vehicle.’ They’re just happy to get behind the wheel of a car, any car. And they’re certainly not going to pay much, if any attention, to someone telling them to take the bus when their only goal in life at that moment is driving.” No one is forcing young people to go buy a hybrid, no matter what bogeyman Lopez tries to conjure here. Driver training is exactly when we should be teaching young people about the ways that driving style affects fuel economy — of any vehicle. Do it right and everyone benefits: the new driver saves money over his or her entire driving life, the U.S. imports less fuel. As we move to gasoline alternatives, having a smart right foot is going to be even more important to maximize the electric-only range of plug-in vehicles.
We can only assume that, sometime soon, Lopez will say he believes that green-minded politicians “hate the American auto industry.” Oh, wait.
I don’t know who Manny Lopez is or how he manages to get such laughable garbage published, but I certainly agree with the comments above from Autoblog Green.
