Comments on: The one simple change that could vastly improve Waxman-Markey: Sunset the rip-offsets http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/27/waxman-markey-sunset-rip-offsets/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:16:11 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Payal Parekh http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/27/waxman-markey-sunset-rip-offsets/#comment-42910 Payal Parekh Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:55:24 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6061#comment-42910 The draft bill does not state that international credits can only be purchased from a country that has agreed to reduce its own emissions. The only requirements (found on page 424) is that the country, where the offset project takes place, and the US are party to a bi- or multilateral agreement concerning offsets and the country is a developing country. The bill also does not rule out offsets from the CDM entering the US system. On page 429, "offset credits that are issued by an international body established pursuant to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to a protocol to such Convention, or to a treaty that succeeds such Convention" will be accepted if the offset credits meet the standard that the US plans to set (which is largely based on the structure of the CDM). The draft bill does not state that international credits can only be purchased from a country that has agreed to reduce its own emissions. The only requirements (found on page 424) is that the country, where the offset project takes place, and the US are party to a bi- or multilateral agreement concerning offsets and the country is a developing country.

The bill also does not rule out offsets from the CDM entering the US system. On page 429, “offset credits that are issued by an international body established pursuant to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to a protocol to such Convention, or to a treaty that succeeds such Convention” will be accepted if the offset credits meet the standard that the US plans to set (which is largely based on the structure of the CDM).

]]> By: Jesse Jenkins http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/27/waxman-markey-sunset-rip-offsets/#comment-42733 Jesse Jenkins Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:03:15 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6061#comment-42733 The problem with allowing rip-offsets from the start (even if you sunset them), is that you establish a whole new sector of rent-seeking industry players who will come to depend on the offset revenue streams for the livelihood and profits. Try taking that away in the future and you will have a problem. Same goes with giving free allowances away from the start. You are sure to have a fight on your hands in the future when free allowances and/or offsets sunset. Those rent seeking industries will be right back in front of Congress asking for "just a little more time for the transition" etc. Better to just limit the up front cost impacts in the first place with transparent cost containment, have no spurious carbon offsets or free polluter handouts, and reinvest almost all of the revenue to spur clean energy innovation and rapid deployment of clean and efficient energy technologies and critical enabling infrastructure (picking up where the carbon price necessarily leaves off). Instead of creating rent-seeking industries among old, pollution-economy industries and peddlers of rip-offsets who will do everything they can to delay strengthening of the bill in the future (even if it's scheduled in the legislation), this approach would spur the birth and growth of larger and ever-more-influential clean energy industries that can actually help you lobby for the strengthening of the clean energy/climate legislation in the future. That's the right kind of compromise, but not the one Congress is heading towards now... [<em>JR: As a long-standing opponent of offsets, I could not disagree more with you. First off, the rest of the world really likes offsets, and view them as an important way of us integrating with them. Second, you Breakthrough Institute folks supposedly believe the Chinese and other developing countries would never raise carbon prices, but somehow that tens of billions of dollars a year will be spent on Greening up their economies. That requires offsets -- at least if one buys into your worldview which I don't. Third, "rent-seeking industries" -- that is a standard right wing talking point. In fact, the reason we are creating a carbon market is to create carbon-reducing industries. Again, I don't like offsets, but arguments make no sense and are internally inconsistent.</em>] The problem with allowing rip-offsets from the start (even if you sunset them), is that you establish a whole new sector of rent-seeking industry players who will come to depend on the offset revenue streams for the livelihood and profits. Try taking that away in the future and you will have a problem. Same goes with giving free allowances away from the start. You are sure to have a fight on your hands in the future when free allowances and/or offsets sunset. Those rent seeking industries will be right back in front of Congress asking for “just a little more time for the transition” etc.

Better to just limit the up front cost impacts in the first place with transparent cost containment, have no spurious carbon offsets or free polluter handouts, and reinvest almost all of the revenue to spur clean energy innovation and rapid deployment of clean and efficient energy technologies and critical enabling infrastructure (picking up where the carbon price necessarily leaves off). Instead of creating rent-seeking industries among old, pollution-economy industries and peddlers of rip-offsets who will do everything they can to delay strengthening of the bill in the future (even if it’s scheduled in the legislation), this approach would spur the birth and growth of larger and ever-more-influential clean energy industries that can actually help you lobby for the strengthening of the clean energy/climate legislation in the future. That’s the right kind of compromise, but not the one Congress is heading towards now…

[JR: As a long-standing opponent of offsets, I could not disagree more with you. First off, the rest of the world really likes offsets, and view them as an important way of us integrating with them.

Second, you Breakthrough Institute folks supposedly believe the Chinese and other developing countries would never raise carbon prices, but somehow that tens of billions of dollars a year will be spent on Greening up their economies. That requires offsets -- at least if one buys into your worldview which I don't.

Third, "rent-seeking industries" -- that is a standard right wing talking point. In fact, the reason we are creating a carbon market is to create carbon-reducing industries. Again, I don't like offsets, but arguments make no sense and are internally inconsistent.]

]]> By: Richard Pauli http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/27/waxman-markey-sunset-rip-offsets/#comment-42697 Richard Pauli Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:41:01 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6061#comment-42697 Hmm.. So again we are building a commercial market based on a false premise. Where have I heard of this before? Sounds like a bubble. Where is the market when CO2 levels continue to rise? Burst bubble. Hmm.. So again we are building a commercial market based on a false premise.

Where have I heard of this before? Sounds like a bubble.

Where is the market when CO2 levels continue to rise? Burst bubble.

]]>