Pollution Allowance Auctions

In high school debate, twenty years ago, I ran a case for auctioning pollution permits, the application of the free market to pollution. We did pretty well because there was nothing written against it. In the last week, it's hit the headlines. Wired points out that sulfur dioxide went on the market in 1993. Paul Krugman argues that the market fails in the case of local pollutants like mercury (though his research has been questioned). And after reading WorldChanging's take on pollution permits, I have to wonder, why aren't these sold on E*TRADE? If I want to take 5 tons of pollution off the market, why should I have to go through a broker? And if I buy 5 tons, what stops Congress from releasing 10 more tons tomorrow?

Comments

Citizens have no power against gov't agendas

[Spamalamadingdong]

Conservationists have already tried to shield old-growth forest by buying the timber rights. IIRC, they were told by the Interior department that they could not do this; their purchase was a contract to cut, and if they refused to do so the timber would be re-sold to someone else.

It's perverted for someone (like the Reagan and Bush administrations) to claim to support markets on one hand and the work to defeat them when they don't yield the result that they've pre-ordained.

Re:Citizens have no power against gov't agendas

[Quixotic137]

They either need our brilliant management or they need to be left alone completely. The fact is that unlogged forest today is much denser than unlogged forest of 100 years ago. For one particular example, look here. These people retraced Custer's path through the Black Hills of South Dakota in 1874 precisely, and took pictures from the exact same locations as Custer's photographer. Unfortunately it's a little difficult to see from the sample pictures they have on the website, but if you can find an actual copy of the book (or care to order one), the difference in density is quite evident.

The point of all of this is that unmanaged forest creates an extreme fire hazard, as evidenced in the United States over the past few summers. When we put out the fires, the forest just keeps getting denser. We either need to let it burn (and deal with the loss of life and property damage), or manage it. Eventually it's not going to be possible to stop the fires.

Well, yeah

[Otter]

It is rather telling, isn't it, that WorldChanging finds the notion of putting one's money where one's mouth is to be such a radical notion? I'm reminded of wondering during all the fuss about anti-HIV pharamaceutical pricing why all these noble, selfless people never thought of reaching into their own pockets to save those lives that are so much more important than money. You'd almost think that their generosity was entirely limited to being free with other peoples' money.

Why limited permits.

[MindStalker]

I always thought that selling license to polute should be priced at the extimated cost of cleaning up the polution. That way you can sell endless amounts of it, and use the money to clean it up, or the company would be smart and clean it up before it left the premises thus saving money.