The Story of Cap & Trade 

♻️ The plastic crisis gets a lot of attention as pollution, but the environmental impact of plastic’s life cycle starts long before it ends up in our waterways and ecosystems. Watch our latest animation, The Story of Plastic: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iO3SA4YyEYU.html

This is really helpful for my economics essay :).

Just wondering...where are you getting your resources from????

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think many people really understand what the Cap & Trade really means, your explanation is simple enough for everyone to understand and clearly show us what is the problem of it.

it's funny how we needed to reduce CO2 emissions to 350ppm but now (10 years later) we're sitting at about 415ppm and are seeing the beginning of some of the worst climate disasters

Very interesting explanation! You made the topic feel fun

Yikes! Thank you for bringing this issue to everyone's attention. It is important information that everyone needs to know. Climate change is a ticking bomb and needs proper solutions to correct the damage we have done and prevent more damage. I want a healthy environment for my grandchildren and I will to all I can to insure that. Thank you for all the good you do Annie!

Simple solutions: set a limit, no exceptions! This whole video was about exceptions. If there are none then cap and trade would work great.

Thanks for this video - I always had a feeling that there's something fishy with cap&trade, seeing that it is being misused all the time. Your video gave me much more clarity on what's really wrong with it. Goes to my favorites.

Thank you for continuing to create enlightening videos for the world to watch, Annie!!

Annie, for the first time in any of her videos, does an excellent job of describing a problem (cap & trade) with actual factual data. And for as much of the video as she is directly talking about cap & trade, she's being honest and educational. It's once she starts talking about other stuff that it becomes dangerous propaganda. Search "Story of Cap & Trade, The Critique" for an explanation of what she says that's wrong.

Thank you for these inspiring videos! I'll be showing them to my children and friends.

nearly 10 years later, Trump pulls from the Paris Agreement

this is "maximize profit regardless of the social and environmental cost" at its finest

this video is 1000x better than my lecturer

To be honest, in my opinion none of your arguments against cap and trade really make any sense (sorry this got so long): 1. First argument (somewhat implicit): "Cap and trade is bad because some of the people trading the certificates would speculate and make money/get rich in the process". Well, speculators do not always get rich, sometimes they also lose money (e.g. when a bubble bursts). More importantly, if cap and trade is both effective in achieving its goal (reducing carbon emissions and thus helping solve the climate crisis) and also cost-effective (able to achieve this goal at lower cost to society compared to alternative ways like regulation), does it really matter if some people make a living trading those certificates? The amount of money traders or speculators make would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the main effects of cap and trade (making goods more expensive in proportion to the amount of carbon emission their production creates and therefore giving companies a real incentive to reduce those emissions). 2. "Cap and trade is bad because big polluters (companies that are emitting a lot of greenhouse gases) are getting certificates for free". Well guess what, without cap and trade (e.g. right now), big polluters are already getting the right to pollute for free, since they do not have to buy any certificates at all (since certificates do not exist). So even if you were to give all the certificates out for free, it would not be worse than the situation right now. More importantly, this is not really an argument against cap and trade *itself* - it is an argument against a certain *way of implementing* cap and trade. Cap and trade works just as well if all certificates are auctioned off, so every company would have to buy the certificates corresponding to its emissions. This also would (obviously) create additional government revenue - which could be used to lower other taxes (for example), so that the total burden for producers and consumers would remain the same. 3. "Cap and trade is bad, because climate change will have very serious consequences for the people living in poor countries that did not contribute to the problem" That (the negative consequences of global warming) is actually not an argument *against*, but *for* cap and trade. Economists have argued for years that market based schemes (like a carbon tax or cap and trade) are able to achieve the goal (reducing the emission of greenhouse gases) at lower cost to society (less loss of individual freedom and monetary wealth) compared to more conventional policy instruments (e.g. the government passing strict regulations regarding those emissions). The corresponding argument is covered in advanced economics classes in college, and it is not overly hard to understand for someone with some intermediate knowledge in economics, but admittedly most people will not be willing to invest the time necessary to educate themselves enough to understand it. However, I would argue that it is better to trust experts if they *are truly experts in their respective field* and *agree* on something, rather than just ignore what scientists have to say. And while the main economic argument for cap and trade is theoretical (e.g. relies on logical arguments), several empirical studies (e.g. about the emission trading scheme in Europe and those of some US-states) have confirmed that the predicted effects are indeed realized in the real world. Cap and trade is a real solution to the problem of global warming, it is the best solution we currently have, because it reduces emissions in the best way (where it can be reduced at the lowest cost to society). 4. "Cap and trade is bad because some offset credits would be created fraudulently (without really offsetting pollution)." Again, like (2), this is *not* an argument against cap and trade in general, but against a *specific way of implementing* cap and trade. Cap and trade works perfectly fine without any offset credits. 5. "Cap and trade is bad because we cannot agree on a global cap". Granted, the ideal solution to global warming would be to have all countries participate in one large cap and trade system. But that is also true for any other solution to global warming (e.g. regulations) - it is a global problem, so no country can solve it on its own. That, however, is not a (good) argument for doing nothing until some "global deal" is achieved - especially rich countries (e.g. members of the OECD) can do a lot by themselves. If all members of the OECD would have functioning cap and trade systems, with a reasonably ambitious path of reducing emission certificates over the years, this would have a large positive impact with regards to reducing global emissions. 6. "Cap and trade is bad because it creates a false sense of security, so less other action will be taken to really reduce emissions" This argument relies on the assumption that cap and trade does not really work - which is a false premise. It does work, it reduces emissions, and it does so at a lower cost to consumers, producers, society, than any other policy tool we know (e.g. traditional regulation). If you do not like a certain *way* in which cap and trade is/was introduced in form of a law, support the introduction/expansion of it in a better way (e.g. without giving away certificates to companies and without credits for offsetting emissions). Since global warming is a problem which involves a long time horizon and the cooperation of a lot of countries, it is already really difficult to fix it. Ignoring science (in this case, economics) about how best to achieve it will just make it even more difficult.

What could go wrong if profit-driven corporations gained control your city's public water systems? Watch our latest animation, The Story of Water! 👉🏽 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-04jTleV0gK0.html

How come we don't see her in the presidential candidates?

This video is very well composed to address issues with a global cap and trade but it considers a very specific set of assumptions for the set up: 1. The cap & trade system applies to the entire globe. 2. A cap & giveaway scheme is enacted. 3. Offsets occur in 3rd world countries where corrupt practices will lead to meaningless offsets. The first assumption makes any policy option pretty much impossible to get everyone on board. Each nation faces its own abatement costs, has a unique government/industry interface, and has its own sovereignty (usually). No single target will work at that scale and no tax/subsidy scheme is possible due to logistics and sovereignty issues. A regional cap & trade policy would more accurately reflect local abatement costs, be more enforceable and avoid sovereignty issues. The second assumption of a cap and giveaway is just one scheme for intial distribution of permits. Using an auction scheme to distribute permits forces the firms that pollute the most to buy the most permits at higher costs according to their willingness (and ability) to pay. The firms effectively reveal their emission levels and abatement costs in the auction. The proceeds from the auction can go into addressing the ecological debt that was mentioned in the video. The third assumption is that offsets occur in 3rd world countries. Offsets can also take place in the country where the pollution originates. If the country isn't very corrupt, offset projects can be properly vetted and monitored, with fines and conditions for violations. This also allows for more citizen whistleblowers as people who live in that region are more likely to see something is up and to say something as they are more invested in the place they live (ostensibly). Offsets are still problematic as measuring their true impact is difficult and some measure of cheating is to be expected, but they can be a lot more legitimate than descibed and cheating happens pretty much everywhere in any system. I feel like this video should be edited to address the specific set of assumptions and and exceptions it employs to make its points in the interest of clarity and fairness to the cap & trade system If you made it this far, thank you for reading

This really helped me understand what's been going on under our noses. Get informed folks, we may need you to vote wiser from now on. We need leaders who'll do the right thing for everyone and for now on.

This video is highly misleading. Do not listen to this woman. The video portrays Cap & Trade as though it is a program that benefits polluters. It does not. It literally sets a limit, or more appropriately a "cap", on what they can produce. What used to be a free commodity to polluters is now a limited resource, which in effect means the externalities it causes now has a price. The cap is then reduced every year by governments, thus making the permit more expensive and incentivizing polluters to find clean alternatives to their means of operations. It has been successful in addressing other externalities that markets can produce. The video closes with a preposterous claim that Cap & Trade "protects businesses as usual" and that it gives us a false sense of progress by convincing us to drive less, change our bulbs, "while they take care of the rest" - implying they will continue to pollute at increasing levels, which they won't because they are literally capped from doing so. I am going to correct what this video gets egregiously wrong on this point. Cap & Trade makes carbon a limited commodity, like most other things in this world. As a result, it causes the ENTIRE economy to reorganize itself to adjust to this new reality, all through the efficient means of price signals. Cap & Trade, or even a carbon tax, will allow us to consume any good or service without having to think about what is most ecologically friendly (in terms of carbon emissions). Why? Because they entire supply chain behind that good or service has been readjusted accordingly to the new price of carbon. It effectively targets the source of the problem. And no, this does not "strengthen the case for utilities to continue to use coal", as it does precisely the opposite, especially since coal is the greatest contributor of carbon. I suggest listening to a resource more creditable and in touch with the realities of economics, such as the works of Professor William Nordhaus from Yale University, whom won the Nobel prize recently in this field of study. Economists are generally in favor of a Cap & Trade or Carbon Tax.

I really like the videos but I think the woman is still a bit naive. She's talking about 'our governments', the rich and powerful 1% who run big corporations have governments in their POCKETS...

This video has a lot of flaw and is very one sided to "cap and trade = bad". If it wasn't for collecting carbon credits by carbon sequestration (pumping CO2 into the ground) or planting trees then these would not be profitable at all and no one would have much incentive to spend money to do it in the first place. Also, completely killing the coal industry is a bad things since local economies would entirely collapse without coal, so weening off coal and increasing jobs in other sectors that don't require degrees is the only way to do it without sky rocketing unemployment. Coal power also gets dirt cheap power rates where renewable energy get premium price power rates. This leaves coal plants having to pay for extremely high regulations, lots of operation costs and return has to sell their power for dirt cheap, a lot of times this puts coal plants out of business. I'm all for cap and trade and slowly moving towards more renewable sources, nuclear is probably the most reasonable option since renewables make shit energy/acre compared to nuclear power.

Yea. It's foolish to say 'stop' climate change, a natural phenomenon. However, we can slow it down by changing our actions. Sadly 'climate change' has also become a distraction from the real problem (it is a symptom - not the problem). Certain human actions/behaviour negatively impact eco-systems and life forms on Earth. There is NO QUESTION about that. Industry dictates what consumers demand. We need to change our ways. Well done Annie, for another enlightening vid.

This video is innocently (?) based on misunderstandings. 1 - Cap and Trade is meant to be a SUPPLEMENTAL mesure to combat Climate C 2 - The purpose of C&T is to reduce the costs for private entities through the market 3 - Carbon credits given from the government are not an additional asset given the fact that the polluter HAS TO GIVE THEM BK EVERY YEAR to the authority. 4 - In EU CO2 pollution has been REDUCED even more than the Kyoto Protocol Committment: see Eu Env Agency reports

When a man with power allows his greed to prevail over his conscience...the world is screwed.

let's tax the air.

Lets all switch to nuclear energy folks; it's the greenest energy available today in these times of energy crises.

Annie Leonard, I like you videos, even though over a decade has passed, they are still relevant. Here in Canada, everyone is just stupid over Canada being net zero, like Canada not emitting any greenhouse gas is actually a finish line to saving the planet. Meanwhile 75% of our consumer goods that we purchase come from China that is ramping up emissions with more coal. Citizens in every wealthy country need to see their consumerism as the problem, greenhouse gas and plastic pollution are not the problem, they are symptoms and results of overconsumption by people who would rather leave it to big business to fix the problem without taking any ownership or responsibility for their own actions. Be the change you want to see people!

If we respected people's individual rights and actually had real arbitrators to protect these rights, there is no way polluters could get away with polluting anyone's air or property.

Oh PLEASE! It's about CARBON CREDITS and MONEY. Period. Stop being so gullible.

This is incredibly liberal, but I think this is very moving and everyone should see it.

Prior to humans, the ozone layer actually had holes, albeit smaller ones. Before that, there was actually no ozone layer at all. There were many periods of time when the ozone layer was almost obliterated while life was still on this planet before humans. This happens because of geological events such as major volcanoes. In fact, one single volcano emits more pollutants when it's active than most of the world's factories combined.

It's called the Arctic Oscillation - look it up. Average temperatures in the Arctic are actually warmer this year, while Europe, North America and China has a big chill. Meanwhile Australia is really cooking with record temperatures and catastrophic bushfires.

This ‘surplus right’ is then sold to a high-polluting firm which gives it the right to pollute the same amount of the ‘surplus right’. Hence, no additional permits are given, just transferred to another party through the market. Emission levels do not increase because the sum of permits equal the cap.

Exactly this type of videos is not making you any less blind... not to say that it's pure propaganda. Cap and trade is the closest thing to a solution that we have right now

What did you want to happen when the system itself rewards people to cheat and be dishonest? the problem is not laws or regulations, the problem is the system itself, as long as there is money for someone iin the process, it doesnt matter if its for killing babies, someone will do it... Its pure logic... thevenusproject dotcom

Cap-and-trade is complicated. After all, it worked when it came time to fix acid rain and even other environmental problems. The reason it worked for acid rain was because the pollutant chemicals that lead to acid rain weren't tied to the prosperity of the economy at large like natural gas and other fossil fuels. It may fuel investment in green energy, but then again it may not because fossil fuel companies have lots of money and have consistently shown that they'd rather spend it on corporate lobbying to stop environmental progress than they would spend it to transition to renewable energy.

You explained the concept pretty well. Thank you

Annie goes back to basic principles to help us think clearly about this complex issue. A definite 'must see' for anyone who cares about our planet. Thank you!

Exactly. And see this is where the problem lies doesn't it? How exactly do you prevent a company from doing this? Free Market Economics dictates that this problem will take care of itself. But as you clearly showed, it does not. So obviously some regulation is needed. Not a boatload of inefficient, counter-effective regulations and bureaucracies like we have, but rather efficient, carefully managed ones.

It took us half a century to get into this mess, but we don't have that long to get out of it. I am not holding my breath for the corporate money changers to be thrown out of the temple; too many people are too dumbed down & intimidated to overthrow them. I believe it is already too late to save the planet. It is not a question of IF all life on earth will end; it's a question of WHEN.

As someone who has persistently despaired about the liberal/left's ability to come up with arguments that will appeal to voters other than themselves, that draws in outsiders rather than repelling them, this is the most hopeful series of presentations I've ever seen. Well done.

It makes no sence that so many scientists are lying!! Besides, climatic changes are evident and dramatic if you visit Latino America, Asia, Africa, Antarctica, etc. Good iniciative Story of Staff

Instead of trying to post 10-20 posts due to the cap limit, let me PM you an interesting article I found to that effect.

This video goes under false premises: #1 “Cap and Giveaway”/”Free permits! The more they pollute, the more they get!” Well that is untrue. Initially, firms will be given permits which allow them to pollute the same emission levels for all firms. Firms who pollute less than the amount specified in their permits can sell those ‘surplus rights’ to high-polluting firms.

Keep in mind that many of the same people that endorse the Cap & Trade scheme are the same folks investing in companies responsible for green technologies that we should be moving to. The fact is, even though this video exposes how horrible Cap & Trade is, it's also hyping up the magnitude of the problem and suggests that we force people to convert to green tech which can be quite expensive. In short, it could also be said the creation of this video is driven by profit. INCENTIVES, NOT FORCE!

"I hope you all realize that you could eliminate every power plant in America today and you can stop every car in America. Take out the entire power generation sector and you still would not be anywhere near 80 percent below 1990 levels. You would be closer to around 60 percent... it would be around 68 percent and this is with bringing the economy to a complete halt basically." ~Joel Rogers Also, Penn and Teller debunked carbon trading in small scale like 2 years ago.

EU tries to implement airline emission tax, but INTERNATIONAL Air Transport Association (IATA) 'warns' a pending trade war. This is the sort of geopolitical struggle we are and will be facing when we coming against people trying to protect their profitability at all cost.

Your voice is amazing!

Another point: happyness, where is it? buying? owning? or maybe something different.

Sorry. My first post was inaccurate. It was the EDF, not the WWF, that first proposed the Cap and Trade concept.

mistake: Basic chemistry says that carbon dioxide is the main reason for the existance of the greenhouse effect, and in fact isnt an air pollutant

Just to clarify I don't disagree with your proposal, I support regulation to prevent Monopolization. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy/circular logic in deregulating (nearly) everything like so many libertarians/conservatives claim to want, then turning around and claiming regulation as an answer to preventing monopolization.

No permits are created, only transferred. Low-polluting firms are rewarded in terms of profits and high-polluting firms get punished in terms of higher costs. Therefore it would be best for high-polluting firms to seek for low-pollution technologies and take advantage of the permit market.

majority of people in this world wouldn't bother to tree-hug unless they are going to die tomorrow for not doing it that is why cap and trade is the only way which might prevent such scenario from happening in the first place, it creates incentives cap and trade works, and this video is outdated

@TheSAMathematician ... won't be enough to combat this. We will be digging a hole for ourselves to fix a problem, and we won't remotely fix said problem. Before we commit ourselves to a course of action, we should ask our selves what the costs of these actions would be, and what the costs of not undergoing these actions would be. If climate change is to be fought, a global consensus is required. Creating markets is the most efficient way to fight climate change.

If we were to charge companies for carbon permits then they would just pass the cost along to consumers. We subsidize them because EVERYTHING in our economy is based on fossil fuels and if fossil fuels go down rapidly then so do we. Cap and Trade is the way to go, we just need to constantly enforce it and have strict laws with fair but effective punishments

I'm not a Global Warmingist, but I do think we need to evolve past fossil fuels immediately, or it will become a serious issue. However, our current socioeconomic system will NOT allow for us to really do what is right. We are only concerned with what is profitable, not what is proper. Our tech gives us amazing abilities, but we've hamstrung ourselves. Time to change the system to something that's never been done before, to account for the 21st century...not remain in the ideology of the 19th.

Don't agree with much of what you said here, but I really like how you said it. I think the critics at least owe you the courtesy of making a more persuasive cartoon for their point of view.

#2Yes it is highly-recommendable to sell permits and fund a clean energy economy or compensate those harmed by climate change but to give a “dividend” or put rebates to fuel prices “while we transition to that clean energy economy” means to lower prices of oil and to increase its use which also means increasing the use of a pollution-generating substance.

The Cap&Trade system works perfectly as long as it isn't watered down by weak and corrupt governments. U can impose a fixed cap on carbon emissions and let the market determine where reducing emissions is most efficient. What's the alternative? Some government bureaucrat deciding on who is allowed to pollute and who isn't?

I like how she blamed Western countries for the problems. So let me get this straight, I'm from a Western country now I'm being punished for things that happened upwards to over a 100 years ago. Very interesting thought process, a little hyperbolic, and for the record I think we should clean up the The world. When China gets on board and India who are the 2 biggest polluters in the world I think the cap and trade could be useful. I don't need a guilt trip from anybody.

Great video. Everybody should watch it.

I have to plead ignorance from a total lack of time to research this topic thoroughly. My only thoughts on the matter are that I think far too many people are simply taking what others say as hard fact. Regardless of which side you're on, it is ABSOLUTELY DANGEROUS to simply believe it because somebody says it. Just because somebody claiming to be an expert says something either for or against something, that doesn't make it true. Don't be sheep to be lead to the slaughter

@survivalpodcasting However 1.94C is at the lower end of the IPCC estimates. So if we used the same cal for the high estimate of 4.5C there is still be an unacceptable temp increase. In facts this is stated in the conclusion where Bounoua writes, "the feedback slows but dose not alleviate the projected warming" However 1.94C is at the lower end of the IPCC estimates. So if we used the same cal for the high estimate of 4.5C there is still be an unacceptable temp increase.

This video is only helping you understand that cap and trade in the form it is now is not a sufficient solution for the problems we are facing. And by the way, stopping to think in absolutes would help you understand those kind of things a little better.

Murat was here. TSF (Thanks For Sharing)

Cap and Trade is market based, relies on the market, markets are generally more efficient than the government in getting things done. But I have to agree with the free permits, the offset and distraction points. I don't believe we should rely on the government as well, it should be the government and the market.

The solution lies in all, the bad is to think that we must do great deeds to change the pollution situation. If all we do not use so many plastic bags in our shop, we turned off the lights, recycle or fail to eat meat once a week .... we do a lot! With regard to consumerism: how much of what we buy is really essential to our lives???

@TreachMarkets I was referring to the climatic aspects of global warming, but you are correct that the hype is about money and power. Sad that the people who crave money and political power have no REAL power, cannot control their own minds or emotions, and have no clue what might make them happy...if they even have a glimmering of what happiness is! We live in a sick society. Thankfully, there are those who know better.

The U.S. consumes about 21 million of the 86 million barrels of oil per day demanded on the global market. While the Defense Department is as the nation’s single largest user of energy, its 1.6 million gallons a day in Iraq is small relative to the total market. In World War II, the average fuel consumption per service member was about 1.67 gallons a day. In Iraq, it’s 27.3 gallons. cont...

No seriously, how do you meet these solid caps and pay for these carbon fees? Unless everyone on this website is tired of low costs and wants higher prices and higher taxes, we need something much more concrete than "solid caps, strong laws, citizen actions, and carbon fees."

How do you put a meter on carbon ?

Worth every minute

Mixed feelings about clip. Agree that Cap and trade or Offsets are scams or ineffective. Do not agree with the idea that global warming is imminent BUT should be addressed just for the fact that pollution is bad for everyone's health. If the clip was edited for the global warming, I'd give it a thumb up.

WE have the carbon tax in BC Canada. Its a racket because we do not have other choices. They tax us for using gasoline and yet in my area they refuse to put the skytrain transit line so we are forced to use our cars. We have no alternative. It is an outrage!

Excellent VIDEO. I will be showing this in my art/technology class when we get back from break! I'm planning a lesson plan around it. As I can see from the other comments here it is really hard to convince adults...so I'm going to start with their children!

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility.

I remeber in the 70's the big crisis was a global ice age, now it is global warming. Which one is it? It is still uncertain if mankind has any drastic effect on the climate at all. The past few years the worlds avg temp has dropped, but you don't hear any discussion of that. Seriously the same people speaking out for cap-n-trade/ global warming are the same ppl that stand to make billions.

#3 “Offset permits are created when a company supposedly removes or reduces carbon. They then get a permit which can be sold to a polluter who wants permission to emit more carbon.” Wrong. The true story goes like this: A polluter reduces its emission levels less than the amount specified in its permit.

The video does a good job of explaining how C&T is abused. But that doesn't mean the abuses are part and parcel of C&T. C&T is currently in use in the U.S. to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and it works very well. The video claims that approach can't be applied to carbon emissions. Why not? Why can't we enact safeguards to prevent giveaways, bogus projects, and other abuses under C&T?

Watching from India

DESC sets fuel rates paid by military units. Currently, prices are $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline and $3.04 for jet fuel. Avgas, a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles, is sold for $13.61 a gallon. The military consumes about 1.2 million barrels of fuel each month in Iraq at $127.68 a barrel, a price that reflects crude oil refined into usable fuel. cont...

The two problems she addresses can be dealt by 1. auctioning permits and 2. establishing rigid criteria for offsets. The number 3 disappears since the system works.

Also, in Yala (Thialand) a Japanese power company (EGCO) is offsetting its carbon emissions by building a power plant fueled by rubber, wood and waste (carbon neutral stuff). This plant is causing other types of pollution to the surrounding area's air, land and water. Although there is an ongoing dispute over this with the locals in Yala, the focus is on carbon efficiency rather than broader environmental issues concerning all types of pollution.

The sub-prime mortgage was mandated by the Federal Government forcing banks to lend out money they didn't have to people who couldn't pay it back thus causing the problem we have now.

i agree. the "trade" part of "cap and trade" is a scam only so far as the "trade" happens in currencies that the scamsters control. so, let's create local currencies that only trade items like food and other essential items. One, localisation is a big part of the answer. Two, let us all move to the benign climatic regions which can support people within the personal carbon budget of 1 CER=1 tonne carbon. And perhaps, once the situation returns to normal, we can return back.

i know this isnt important but... why 360p? can you upload in 720 or something?

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

Instead of Cap and Trade they should call it bait and switch

I'm not understanding how the first loop hole is an issue.. "all of the allowances are going to the major industries who were polluting in the first place. It's like they get rewarded for polluting" if the cap is set and met by these industries why does it matter? Smaller companies that don't pollute as much can make due with a smaller amount of allowances and as long as all companies abide by the limit there shouldn't be a problem. As the cap reduces over the years, the companies won't even need to be distributed all those free allowances as they've gotten on board on cleaner energy. The only problem I see with this is the offsetting.

cap and trade is a huge problem. climate change is not. CO2 is not a pollutant cap and trade is an energy tax.

You can find a lot of information about the formation of Cap and Trade in a book titled "Climate Wars" by Eric Pooley.

i just meant to change the subscript for simplicity when you are counting, you can keep it o2 if you want just make your coefficient 7 not 14 or else you are misrepresenting the equation. really this is getting off topic though. my point is that your assertion regarding 6H2O+7C02 is wrong.

Maybe it was different when this video was made in 2009. But for those watching today, in 2017 (in relation to California): Permits are not free, they are sold by the government in an auction. Offsetting is monitored to try to avoid cheating Have a look at this if you're interested: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB398

Thanks for those great points, which I didn't recognized before!

additionally, though neither of us is an expert on the matter im sure you would agree that as i stated above to "wolfknows" the greenhouse effect is not up for debate, that is a universally acknowledged phenomenon. the debate is over to what degree our various emissions influence that effect. my thoughts are that we do have an impact on temperature and though its likely not as high as alarmists claim we dont know enough about climate systems to say how much change is safe change.

i dont understand the offsetting thing... how can u sell ur cap if you already sold it in the first place?

#5 Company plans to increase capacity and overstates capacity to regulators so it can get extra permits and sell them. Even if that is the case, if the number of permits are fixed (capped) emissions can’t go high above the level of the cap. #6 'Cap and Trade is a distraction.' It is not. It is a solution.