Liveblog | Workshop: Politics of Climate Change

MODERATOR: Charles Komanoff, The Carbon Tax Center

PRESENTERS: Dr. Daniel Faber, Northeastern University; Peter Goldmark, Environmental Defense Fund; Dr. Rachel Morello-Frosch, University of California – Berkeley; J. Timmons Roberts, The College of William and Mary; Dr. Nicky Sheats, Thomas Edison State College


[1:28p] Charles Komanoff, the workshop's moderator, opened the session with a "confession": As a proponent of the "carbon tax approach" to carbon emission mitigation, he was the "recipient of undeserved gifts" from the environmental justice community:

"Some of the points of support for a carbon tax could also apply to cap and trade; some of the points of support for cap and trade could also apply to carbon tax."

He advised the panel and audience to "move past simple pronouncements", and to have a "thoughtful" discussion about the "real consequences" of each approach.

[1:32p] Dr. Faber, the first speaker, noted the recent "mobilization of a sophisticated infrastructure" of "think-tanks and industry partners" with the goal of advancing policies designed to escape strict regulation of carbon and co-pollutant emissions. He listed his issues with the "cap and trade" approach:

• "It has been demonstrated that cap and trade can impose higher electricity prices on the consumer."
  
• "Cap and trade stifles innovation" by allowing companies to escape the requisite technological innovations by purchasing offset credits.
• "Cap and trade" approaches are "fundamentally undemocratic" because of a lack of "transparency" and the consequent "strong incentive to manipulate numbers".
  

Dr. Faber's criticisms of a carbon tax approach were markedly fewer:

• "A carbon tax does not necessarily prevent toxic hotspots from occurring"

[1:46p] Peter Goldmark opened his remarks with his (and EDF's) general position: "We are racing against a ticking clock", and therefore it was politically "unlikely" that a carbon tax could be effective enough in the short term. With respect to an issue raised about international equality, he posed a "challenge to the advocates" of a carbon tax approach: "Can you show me an example of an area where carbon tax has adequately addressed the needs of the poor?"

He went on to cite functional examples of a working cap and trade system: "The lesson of Europe is that cap and trade can produce sharp reductions" despite Europe's initial over-allocation of carbon credits, which Mr. Goldmark said was something "we could learn from".

Mr. Goldmark "respectfully" disagreed with Dr. Faber, pointing out the "pressing" need to pass carbon legislation "this year".

[1:55p] The next speaker, Dr. Nicky Sheats, listed desirable outcomes of hypothetical climate policy:

• Emission reductions must be "in and near [environmental justice] neighborhoods".
• "Whatever the market-based approach, we must pump revenues back into [environmental justice] neighborhoods."
  
• Regulation attached to carbon legislation "must address co-pollutant issues", because fine particulate emissions "kills people of color" at "disproportionately high rates".

Responding to Mr. Goldmark's challenge, Dr. Sheats said "I don't know of an example of cap and trade that has benefited poor people", which elicited no clear response from Mr. Goldmark.

[2:05p] Dr. J. Timmons Roberts, the fourth speaker, further contributed to Mr. Goldmark's discussion about "international equality":

"The developing countries have been shafted; they've been asked to give up their agenda for development that they have been pursuing since the 1970's"

He argued for an "international tax" which be collected and distributed by a non-governmental entity. He cited the "experience of foreign aid" that showed that "nations don't always follow through on their promises. The injustice is so savage."

[2:19p] Dr. Rachel Morello-Frosch, the fifth and final speaker, talked about a "challenge between efficiency and equity approaches to GHG emissions", and suggested the conception of "climate opportunity zones" which would focus on "regionally based reduction". She provided analysis linking reductions in "GHG emissions" with projected "20% reductions in rates of cancers caused by air pollution".

Dr. Morello-Frosch suggested that regulations for regional reductions in carbon and co-pollutant emissions should be considered in tandem with broader approaches: "Whatever interventions we talk about, place does matter, co-pollutants do matter."

[2:28p] Moderator Charles Komanoff opened the panel to questions from the audience.

• "Why advocate tradeable permits as opposed to non-tradeable permits?" Mr. Goldmark responded by citing the "dynamic" aspect of the trading process, which he said would spur innovation. He also said that the market aspect of the cap and trade system was what would drive prices down. He further pointed out that even though reductions in co-pollutant should be geographically-based, reductions in carbon emissions could happen anywhere.

• A questioner took issue with Mr. Goldmark's assertion - that reductions in co-pollutants should be geographically-based, but reductions in carbon emissions could happen anywhere - citing her observation that in most cases, carbon and co-pollutant source points were identical (her examples: "oil refinery" and "cement factory"). Mr. Goldmark reiterated his statement, which was technically correct, but did not address the issue that was implicit in the questioners comment: How do you effectively separate the two?