- There was no mention of a possible nationwide carbon pricing scheme in California
- There were very few economists; also most didn't seem to view a carbon price as the centerpiece of climate change legislation, only a supplement to traditional regulation. I am curious what the economists think of that assertion.
- Fran Pavley, author of AB 32, mentioned lowering energy prices while increasing efficiency and increasing jobs. I wanted to question her more about this, because I feel strongly like environmental legislation should focus on helping the environment (at least as long as the marginal social benefit is worth the cost), not on necessarily increasing jobs.
- There was some interesting discussion of linking different carbon trading schemes.
- There was a clear support of cap-and-trade over a carbon tax. The people were mostly regulators, lawyers, investors, and it's interesting that none seemed to be more strongly supported of a clear price.
- Carbon offsets and accounting for offsets was an interesting topic that I actually did learn something about.
- There was a lot of support for government spending, but this might have been skewed because of the people present (regulators, investors, government officials).
Overall, I am worried that there is not enough of a sense of energy and not nearly enough support for a global price on carbon, which is really necessary in order to limit our contribution to climate change.
By the way, this was the agenda: http://policyinstitute.ucdavis.edu/files/general/pdf/2013-01-05_Final-Agenda.pdf . Again, more to come later.
By the way, this was the agenda: http://policyinstitute.ucdavis.edu/files/general/pdf/2013-01-05_Final-Agenda.pdf . Again, more to come later.
No comments:
Post a Comment