Comments on: Understanding the cap and share ‘commons’ approach to energy expenditure https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/understanding-the-cap-and-share-commons-approach-to-energy-expenditure/ Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:54:59 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.17 By: Michel Bauwens https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/understanding-the-cap-and-share-commons-approach-to-energy-expenditure/comment-page-1/#comment-456287 Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:54:59 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=12223#comment-456287 In reply to dennis.

Hi Dennis, do you have any links on this proposal?

]]> By: dennis https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/understanding-the-cap-and-share-commons-approach-to-energy-expenditure/comment-page-1/#comment-456124 Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:03:53 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=12223#comment-456124 A similar idea is “fee-and-dividend,” advocated by James Hansen and various economists. Charge fees to the fossil-fuel companies, and distribute the fees to citizens, equal amount per person. This would probably be a little simpler to implement, but have a similar effect; citizens with below-average emissions would profit. The idea is described in great detail by Steven Stoft in his book Carbonomics.

Stoft and Hansen (in Storms of My Grandchildren) both identify a lot of problems with caps. For example, what cap should a developing nation have? If it’s low, they’re stuck being poor. If they’re allowed to increase, then either they’re uncontrolled, or (as with Kyoto) you give them credit for not growing as much as they (claim they) otherwise would have. Then other countries can buy those credits, based on often-fictional reductions. It’s a big mess and one reason Kyoto has been ineffective.

Just setting a price on carbon has the same economic effect, while bypassing a lot of practical difficulties.

]]>