New Idea: Emissions Credits - Market vs Tax Breaks?

[calculoso]

I was just reading a story on CTVNews's site (Baird says meeting Kyoto would lead to 'collapse') and came upon the following quote:

Many experts say to effectively reduce emissions, such a system is necessary whereby industrial emissions are capped by regulations -- and those companies who are successful can sell their emissions credits to those that are not.

There are two main criticisms to this that I hear:

(1) Selling credits to another company will not make it actually reduce any emissions
(2) Regulations set by bureaucrats could be totally unrealistic.

To address the first point, would it be better to have any credits (produced for reducing their regulations further than targets) only be able to be traded in for tax breaks? Every company would then have to strive to meet their targets or be subject to Government penalties, but those that exceed their targets still get some benefit? Would there be any impact of structuring it this way instead of the other way?

Food for thought... fire away.

[Ford Prefect]

I agree that companies that exceed their emissions target should be rewarded, and that tax breaks are a better way to do it than to allow them to sell credits to companies that fail to meet the target. Those companies need to do something to either achieve the target, or atone in some meaningful way for not reaching it. I don't think the penalty should be a punishment though. I'd rather see them be required to invest in renewable clean energy sources (wind, solar, etc.) to offset their failure to meet emissions targets. That would help foster a renewable clean energy industry in Alberta which would have the double benefit of being good for the environment, as well as positioning the province for the time when our non-renewable, emission generating resources are depleted.

[mykalberta]

The credits would work except with Kyoto there are 3 or 4 sellers:

US, Canada, Australia, and I think Japan. The rest are all buyers so either these 3/4 countries would sell to their friends for market bottom rates (ie sell to Zimbabwe and in thanks we will give you grain etc).

The only way to curb it is for the government to enact new laws say compliance in 2012-2015, if your company doesnt comply you get fined and if you cant pay the fine you declare bankruptcy and someone buys you cheap.

That is market economics 101 - survive or die.

I personally think Canada should adopt the same emission standards as California. That would either allow us to meey Kyoto or at least come damn close. I also agree with the whole re-gassification thing with CO2 and Coal plants - CBC has a really good "In Depth" atricle on their site yesterday talking about it. I know its costly and it would likely hit Alberta Untilies but I think it should be done.

The Alberta government could use the tax revenues from selling the coal to pay for it. That would solve the whole nonsense with nuclear power in Alberta - sorry, I dont want to Bankrole Saskatchewan.

MYK

[Azure]

What nonsense with nuclear power in Alberta? Nuclear power has proven(France) to reduce the reliance we have on fossil fuels.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Azure

What nonsense with nuclear power in Alberta? Nuclear power has proven(France) to reduce the reliance we have on fossil fuels.

Nuclear Power is nonsense in a Fossil Fuel rich Alberta. The only problem is with burning Fossil fuels is the emission. If those are curbed then what is the problem - nothing.

Alberta has more coal than it could burn in 100 years, why would you switch to Nuclear if you have a way to burn coal without CO2 emissions? Any smart answers to that question?

MYK

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Alberta has more coal than it could burn in 100 years, why would you switch to Nuclear if you have a way to burn coal without CO2 emissions? Any smart answers to that question?

MYK

You, sir, are sadly misinformed if you think this is possible.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

You, sir, are sadly misinformed if you think this is possible.

Please see MY POST above about CO2 capturing and depositing it into empty wells as per the article one CBC. Ah heck no one reads actual posts they just like to throw accusations around, so here is the link so everyone can see:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ky...ng-carbon.html

Now normally I dont quote CBC for their honesty but I guess, the CBC, the the 3 companies listed all are also sadly misinformed. Quick someone call BP and tell them that a Calgary Puck poster believes they are sadly misinformed.

Norway, Algeria - heck if they can do it in Algeria they can do it in Alberta - I guess they are also sadly misinformed.

You dont think its possible? Moon landing, free porn, Big Macs - are they not possible? Interesting that people think its not possible to capture CO2 yet its possible to stick millions of transisters within dimensions of a milimeter.

Again, I am sadly misinformed so please quote me some article, any article, heck I will even take some garbage Wikipedia article that says its not possible.

People on this board are just amazing when they spew crap about things they have done absolutley no research about just to increase the post count. Stating an opinion is one thing, spewing crap like that is complete and utter bs.

Also, before ?someone? tries to cover their own a$$ with some BS politicians excuse - no one ever said it wouldnt be cheap, just that its doable with the right leadership and will power - something that this province has lacked for a really really long time.

EDIT START

Quote taken from the CBC Article linked above

["Technically this is really quite feasible," says Malcolm Wilson, an energy expert at the University of Regina and the director of CO2 management at the Energy Innovation Network, a business-government partnership.]

Quick someone use their Shaw free long distance to call this Mr. Wilson (no he is not on the other side of your fence) and tell him that some magical poster on CalgaryPuck doesnt think its possible - quick.

EDIT END

MYK

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

You, sir, are sadly misinformed if you think this is possible.

Although his previous post is sadly misinformed, it is indeed quite possible to burn coal with no to very low emissions. It requires capturing the CO2 after combustion. SK is planning to build a plant of this nature. It costs about 2.5 times what a polluting coal plant costs (despite what the article below might imply, I've seen a lot of estimates from credible engineering firms on this) and has not been done on a fully commercial scale, but the technology is there.
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpo...5c6223&k=68895

The credits would work except with Kyoto there are 3 or 4 sellers:

US, Canada, Australia, and I think Japan. The rest are all buyers so either these 3/4 countries would sell to their friends for market bottom rates (ie sell to Zimbabwe and in thanks we will give you grain etc).

Where do you even get these ideas. US is not in Kyoto and therefore not part of the emission trading system at all. Japan has met its Kyoto targets internally and would be a tiny player. Australia is out. Canada would be a massive buyer as we have done the worst of any Kyoto signatory and would be required to buy a lot of credits.

The Alberta government could use the tax revenues from selling the coal to pay for it. That would solve the whole nonsense with nuclear power in Alberta - sorry, I dont want to Bankrole Saskatchewan.

MYK

Not even sure what this part is getting at. Coal royalties are tiny since the commodity is not really fungible (Alberta coal is poor quality and the overwhelming majority is consumed with a few km of where it is mined). Uranium royalties are a miniscule revenue item for SK, and one nuclear plant in AB would not even make it into SK's budget as a line item. I've seen estimates that fuel costs for a nuclear plant are about $10/MWh. If SK takes 1/3 of this as a royalty (not sure what the actual royalty is on uranium, but this would probably be higher than actual), a 1000 MW nuclear plant would contribute less than $30m annually to SK. I think Ralph spent that much annually on his private air force.

[Cube Inmate]

^^ Try putting together a coherent post, rather than rambling on about "US, Canada, Australia, and I think Japan" being Kyoto credit sellers (WTF?), California emission standards (which ones would those be?), and re-gasification, before you start to claim that you were actually talking about sequestration...which your post said *nothing* about.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

You, sir, are sadly misinformed if you think this is possible.

http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/serv...N/ctv-business

Once again I believe I am not the one misinformed unless you distrust CBC and CTV.

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

^^ Try putting together a coherent post, rather than rambling on about "US, Canada, Australia, and I think Japan" being Kyoto credit sellers (WTF?), California emission standards (which ones would those be?), and re-gasification, before you start to claim that you were actually talking about sequestration...which your post said *nothing* about.

I apologize, buyers - not sellers. Agreed on the rambling however CP isnt the Lauriet prize for writing here.

Someone basically called me a liar (misinformed is a polite way to say it) and so I went on a bit of a rant and have now posted 2 credible sources while one one has posted anything in response.

MYK