I've attached Robin Hahnel's response to my piece on carbon trading. Here are a few paragraphs in response to his response
1) Hahnel objects to the length, but of course I believe in empirical data, in proving my points. Also I would not bother writing on this if I did not use it to argue comprehensively against carbon trading. 2) Hahnel objects to my point on net sequestration because I point out that net sequestration is not always lower than gross. If we were talk pure biology his point would be right. However, in treaties and in most discussions Emissions are discussed including or not including LUCF (land use and changes from forestry) . So I'm looking at way LUCF is handled in treaties and in most discussion. And LUCF is netr sequestration in some cases and a source of net emissions in others. I will note that Hahnel acknowledges my larger point: Net emissions from LUCF in most cases (and yes net Sequestration in all cases) requires lower reductions for a given percentage, or a higher percentage for a given ton reduction. He seems to not worry that this is an obstacle to negotiations, and STILL does not propose any type of additional adjustment in how targets are framed to compensate for the effects of his proposal. 3) Hahnel objects to how extensively i point out the problems with regulatory capture under his proposal, without noticing that I'm pointing out that there are powerful forces who have stronger incentives to influence regulations under his proposal than they have under other policies. He also does not a answer my argument that it is not merely difficult but impossible to measure offsets on a project by project basis because on a project level the baseline is a story about what might have been. 4) Hahnel claims that offsets in nations with national caps will be as likely to honor treaties where they have to give money back as they are to honor treaties where they only receive money if the reduce emissions. Because they are the same thing mathematically, he considers noticing the difference "loss aversion" a trivial psychological point. However. I point out a huge body of peer reviewed literature on loss aversion. I point out that loss aversion is the rule, not the exception in the finance industry. I even point out an actual example of loss aversions in offsets in a major polluter China, where they accepted not having offsets approved but pushed back hard and made threats when the EU considered revoking existing offsets. Apparently the fact that loss aversion actually was demonstrated in practice did not make a dent in Hahnels opinion. Too beautiful a theory to be destroyed by an ugly fact? Is it really news to a libertarian socialist critic of markets that states and corporations are not always rational actors?. 5) Permanence of biological sequestration. Please note that my claim is not that not burning fossil fuels is 100% certain, but that much (not even all) of the uncertainty is under human control in a way that it is not in biological sequestration and also that biological sequestration is less certain. . Hahnel sort of back door acknowledges that. but says it doesn't matter cause you can just penalize nations when sequestration is reversed. Two problems with this. 1)Incentives are supposed to be for stuff under human control. Rewarding and punishing for what is not under human control is not a great way to change human behavior. 2) I also pointed out that to the extent that sequestration is under human influence (and there is a lot we can do to affect long term trends) year to year fluctuations don't measure this well. We need to measure long term not short term sequestration. And we need to measure forest preservation which helps determine long term sequestration even when it does not have much short term affect. I give the example of US forestry. The US has the largest sequestration from LUCF of any nation in the world (though this does come close to emissions). But the department of Ag (which is far from anti tree cutting) says in long term we will turn US LUCF into a net source if we keep doing what we are doing.. Should the US be rewarded for this by having LUCF sequestration subtracted from emissions for the next ten years ? Will having to pay penalties after all the old and 2nd grown is replaced by young trees make up for the fact that the old trees are gone? That is why sequestration should be measured and incentivized separately from emissions cuts, and ecosystem preservation (forests, wetlands, grassland etc.) should be measured and incentivized separately from even long term sequestration. Messy details. You have to pay attention to the messy details. -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com
LippowRes.Internet.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
