Climate change. We get it ... it’s a mess you don’t want to think about.

"But there are growing concerns with California’s much-admired, much-imitated program, with implications that stretch far beyond the state.

California’s cap-and-trade program was one of the first in the world, and it is among the largest. It is premised on the idea that instead of using regulations to force companies to curb their emissions, polluters can be made to pay for every ton of CO₂ they emit, providing them with an incentive to lower emissions on their own. This market-based approach has gained such traction that the Paris climate agreement emphasizes it as the primary way countries can meet their goals to lower worldwide emissions. More than 50 programs have been developed across the world, many inspired by California.

But while the state’s program has helped it meet some initial, easily attained benchmarks, experts are increasingly worried that it is allowing California’s biggest polluters to conduct business as usual and even increase their emissions.

Experts say cap and trade is rarely stringent enough when used alone; direct regulations on refineries and cars are crucial to reining in emissions. But oil representatives are engaged in a worldwide effort to make market-based solutions the primary or only way their emissions are regulated.



ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.




California’s cap-and-trade program was one of the first in the world, and it is among the largest. It is premised on the idea that instead of using regulations to force companies to curb their emissions, polluters can be made to pay for every ton of CO₂ they emit, providing them with an incentive to lower emissions on their own. This market-based approach has gained such traction that the Paris climate agreement emphasizes it as the primary way countries can meet their goals to lower worldwide emissions. More than 50 programs have been developed across the world, many inspired by California.

But while the state’s program has helped it meet some initial, easily attained benchmarks, experts are increasingly worried that it is allowing California’s biggest polluters to conduct business as usual and even increase their emissions.

ProPublica analyzed state data in a way the state doesn’t often report to the public, isolating how emissions have grown within the oil and gas industry. The analysis shows that carbon emissions from California’s oil and gas industry actually rose 3.5% since cap and trade began. Refineries, including one owned by Marathon Petroleum and two owned by Chevron, are consistently the largest polluters in the state. Emissions from vehicles, which burn the fuels processed in refineries, are also rising.

Critics attribute these increases, in part, to a bevy of concessions the state has made to the oil and gas industry to keep the program going. They say these compromises have blocked steps that would have mandated real emissions reductions and threaten the state’s ability to meet its ambitious goal of slashing its emissions 40% by 2030.

“There’s no question a well-designed regulation on oil and gas can have an effect,” said Danny Cullenward, a Stanford researcher and policy director at Near Zero, a climate policy think tank. “And that was traded away for a weak cap-and-trade program.”



Experts say cap and trade is rarely stringent enough when used alone; direct regulations on refineries and cars are crucial to reining in emissions. But oil representatives are engaged in a worldwide effort to make market-based solutions the primary or only way their emissions are regulated.


ProPublica delved into the mechanics of California’s cap-and-trade program, examining 13 years of political horse-trading, regulatory tinkering and industry lobbying to make sense of rising fears that it will not deliver the emissions reductions it is supposed to.

Five areas of concerns have emerged, some specific to the state’s program and some so fundamental that they raise questions about whether market solutions anywhere can do the work that is needed to take meaningful climate action while there is still time."

The rest at the link, which will tell you why I call it Crap and Trade.

https://www.propublica.org/article/...ange-but-oil-and-gas-company-emissions-are-up

 

Well, maybe you shouldn’t then

I won’t be taunted into wasting my time. It references 10 year old material and it is not even approximately accurate in relation to the Australian political landscape. The very fact that it is published in so many fringe sites suggests strongly that it is a paid opinion piece ergo worthless

 

More like your inability to address it simply proves that you're not willing to entertain anything that goes counter to your perceived notions

 

What “points” again I will not be taunted. I did the courtesy of starting to read it, found it was referencing outdated discredited drivel and then when I was told I “missed the point” I did a further courtesy of attempting to read further even though not one person has done ME the courtesy of stating what that point is. It is as if no one actually knows the point and I do strongly suspect that is the case since it appears that some believe it is enough to just plonk twaddle down and claim a win

 

Unless you read the material you can only offer ignorance.

 

Nope! I have found adequate proof further reading would be a waste of my time

 

You don't actually seem to read anything else.

Maybe the fallaciousness of hysterical anti-fossil-fuel drivel?

 

That is an implication of how cap and trade works: those who have emitted CO2 in the past get a tradable permit to emit just as much in the future.

 

Although how it's actually supposed to work is that you keep reducing the number of permits available until the "polluters" magically find another way to do business or they eventually all go out of business. It's supposed to incentivize innovation. In reality everyone tends to already be doing business the best they can in order to make a profit. There generally aren't innovations. So all y'all just die.

And that's how you eliminate CO2 emissions.

 

Such hubris is the marker for intellectual decline.

 

That claim is adequate proof that your views are uninformed as well as anti-scientific and illogical.

 

India has their own plan.
India Reopens 100 Coal Mines
Guest Blogger
In a bold and rebellious move, India has ordered reopening more than 100 dormant coal mines to meet skyrocketing domestic power demand. . . .

 

While the insane Biden administration has prohibited US fossil fuel development amid the highest fuel prices ever recorded....

Can't make this stuff up, folks.