The European Union
initiated its Emissions Trading Scheme in 2005. This was the first large-scale
such trading scheme in the world. The idea was to reduce the greenhouse
emissions of Europe’s industries in a market-rational manner, and to offer the
rest of the world an example of how that is done.
The ETS is also known
as the cap-and-trade system. That phrase suggests the good news/bad news split
for markets. Bad news: there are regulatory caps on the total amount of specified
gases that may be released. Good news: any particular installation can buy
allowances from others to cover otherwise prohibited emissions. As a basic
matter of economic theory, these allowances should be traded toward their
highest and best use, ensuring that the system over all is more efficient than
any command and control approach to the problem could be.
Does it work? And for whom?
The system has in fact
drawn imitation, in both New Zealand and in Australia. In the U.S., California
has its own cap-and-trade program.
The system seems to exist largely at the expense of electricity ratepayers. That feature of the system gives it the appearance of something that is not sustainable.
At least two recent
studies speak to this point. The Oxford
Institute for Energy Studies has published a
white paper that declares in its very title that “electricity markets are broken”
and asks whether they can be fixed. It concludes flatly that “there is no
possibility of a long-term self-sustaining low carbon market based on the
mixture of sources envisaged by governments.”
Separately, the Manhattan
Institute has posted an “issue brief” entitled:
“What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?” This brief,
by Robert Bryce, a senior fellow, seems directly relevant to what really counts
as socially responsible investing. After all, it is a priori reasonable that investing in a way that helps keep
electrical rates reasonable is both wise and sustainable.
Comments
Post a Comment