Any comments, forum-a-roonies?

Don't tell me what to read, Jamie. This is exactly why Lando thinks you're so rude.

@abge - LOL +1

Haha yeah that made me laugh, too. Well done, abgemacht.

So, no-one is interested in this article? Perhaps it's true that the forum is going downhill.

Based on some of the threads lately, it never had an upswing.

Hmmm..... I think the problem is this: the carbon trading scheme failed because it was wrong to begin with. In my opinion the solution to the environment is to augment carbon consuming capacity, not to reduce carbon producing capacity.

"The scheme collapsed on Tuesday, after the European Parliament voted against an emergency withdrawal of some of the carbon permits whose over-supply had swamped the market(1). Why were too many permits issued? Because of the lobbying power of big business. Why did MEPs refuse to withdraw them? Because of the lobbying power of big business."

Sounds like the main problem with the scheme was intervention by lobbying which ruined the effectiveness of the carbon restrictions (because the cap on emissions was too high). But... lobbyists can interfere with regulation, too, so the argument that regulation is better than cap-and-trade is invalid. (Actually, not quite - there is a case to be made that regulation has advantages over cap-and-trade, but using "lobbyists can mess up cap-and-trade" to support that claim is a terrible argument.)

I'm not sure how to reply to redhouse's response, since evaluating it would require empirical study and data we don't have, as opposed to simply considering its logic.

Anyway, the fact remains that cap-and-trade is the most effective (in terms of environmental impact) and efficient (in the economic sense of the word) policy for restricting pollutants, IF and only if it can be properly implemented. Jamiet, you said that the market cannot deal with environmental issues properly (and this is probably true), but in the case you've brought up, the problem isn't something caused by the market. Lobbyists can throw a wrench in your plan just as they can in the scheme economists favor.

@ Starline: The problem with carbon trading schemes is that, when launched, such a scheme needs to have an intial surplus built into it, in order to stimulate trading. Thus companies are trading on the basis of CO2 they would *never* have emitted in any case.

In other ages, citizens sought to gain as much freedom as they could from their overlords. Today, self-hating citizens renounce freedom. Citizens anathematize responsibility. They declare their success dependent and illegitimate. They desperately seek new chains, trying wherever possible to strengthen them.

(Posted on the wrong thread before).

Monbiot appears to be writing in the context of British or European politics, but as an American, I don't see anything about this approaching the reality in which I live. I stopped reading very closely after a couple of obviously incorrect assumptions popped their heads up.

One: that government is rejecting power. Here's an example of a story I read earlier today, about the government pushing around tech companies to get more information on users. Through the use of third parties and in the dubious context of public safety, the federal government is slowly excising Americans' fourth amendment rights. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/proposal-seeks-to-fine-tech-companies-for-noncompliance-with-wiretap-orders/2013/04/28/29e7d9d8-a83c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html

Two: that "billionaires and corporations hate regulation". Sure, some do, but generally speaking, big business *loves* regulation. It reduces competition. Complicated legal rules and tax codes favor large, established businesses which can best afford the lawyers and accountants necessary for their navigation.

This whole notion of "government vs. big business" is fake and misleading. Government and big business work hand in hand; at the highest levels they are practically synonymous. Most things that are "anti-government" or "anti-business" usually advance the power of both, and the question is who gets the lion's share of the gain (hence the debate over Obama's ACA act, which might as well have been called Corporatism in Action).

Dang semck.

@ ckroberts: "Government and big business work hand in hand"

That is often the problem. The government should represent the *people*, rather than putting corporate interests first.