The Daily Score

Email Post

Cap 'n Dividend Versus Carl Pope

Posted by Eric de Place

12/19/2008 06:50 AM

Is cap and trade fit for You Tube?

I didn't get the memo, but apparently it's time to start making You Tube videos explaing cap and trade.

First up, via Yglesias, who got it from Dave Roberts, here's Captain Dividend explaining the cap and dividend approach in less than 2 minutes.

And in this corner, via my colleague Anna, here's the Sierra Club's Carl Pope on why giving away free permits is tantamount to bribery. He'll do it in 47 seconds flat:

I've got to admit that I'm not wild about either one of these presentations. (Nothing against the substance, mind you; I think the explanations are perfectly accurate.) But what do readers think?

Am I wrong? Or is it just that cap and trade doesn't lend itself to You Tube? Is there a better way to get this stuff across in less than 2 minutes?

Cap and Trade

Permalink

Comments

Posted by Alan Durning 12/19/2008 09:13 AM

I like them both, especially the Cap n Dividend one.

Posted by Alex 12/19/2008 12:08 PM

Hey, they stole the idea of a captain from me.

Frankly I'm confused. Which part of cap and trade is bribery?

Posted by Andy Andersson 12/19/2008 01:12 PM

Captain Dividend says it better than any lengthy explanation I have seen. This is a good way of selling the concept to the public while serious climate-policy actors worry about the details of how to act.

Posted by derek 12/20/2008 04:04 PM

Alex, "bribery" implies that by giving permits away (the initial allocation) it creates a positive incentive (reward) for pollutors to comply. Alternatively, by selling permits from the beginning, pollutors are provided with a disincentive (punishment) for noncompliance. It depends to large extent on the incentive mechanisms used and the regulatory environment in place.

Posted by Yoram 12/23/2008 01:21 PM

I like them both fine, except that Carl Pope is wrong about the the cost of cap-and-trade being related to the cost of sequestering carbon.

Posted by morgan 12/26/2008 11:22 PM

Really. Where did Carl get that?

After listening a couple times, I’m guessing that Carl is delicately implying that auction revenues should be directed toward restoring sink capacity, as opposed to abatement, technological investment or indemnification. “polluters should pay to fix the ecological damage”.

Everyone is eagerly eying auction revenues, and he is no different. Though, I find this line of argument politically isolating, especially during a time when intermingling among movements is very useful and needed.