Spoiled opportunity: Harvard expert bemoans squandering of model for cap and trade

September 21, 2012 by Alvin Powell, Harvard University
While many believe the sulfur dioxide regulatory system, which was adopted as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990, is a proven success and a model of how a cap-and-trade regulatory scheme should work, Harvard environmental economist Robert Stavins contends that national politics have “tainted” cap and trade. Credit: Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard Staff Photographer

In 1990, Northeastern lakes were becoming more acidic, threatening fish and other aquatic life and conjuring images of a future where lakes—even those in remote wilderness—were barren.

The culprit was acid rain, generated by fossil fuel burning in automobiles and that spewed into the atmosphere, where it became sulfuric acid, falling in rain and as dry particles into lakes and forests.

Today, the acid rain problem is greatly reduced. Bipartisan legislation passed in 1990 cut sulfur dioxide emissions over the next 17 years to half the level of 1980, reaching the legislated target three years ahead of schedule and providing health and environmental benefits estimated to outstrip costs by tens of billions of dollars.

The sulfur dioxide was adopted as part of the of 1990. In it, total sulfur dioxide emissions were capped—enforced by a $2,000 per ton fine for excess emissions—and then permits were given to power plants across the country to emit a certain amount. for power plant cleanup came by making the emission permits tradable. That meant a plant that lowered emissions below the limit could sell the right to emit more sulfur dioxide to a plant that was having trouble meeting its target. The result was a system that provided incentives for power plant operators to switch to cleaner fuels, install smokestack scrubbers to clean emissions, shut down aging plants, and take other steps to clean emissions beyond the legal requirement.

The program's success made it a model of how a cap-and-trade regulatory scheme should work—everywhere but in the United States.

Harvard environmental economist Robert Stavins said last week that national politics have "tainted" cap and trade, making it unlikely the country will adopt such a scheme to fight climate change anytime soon, even though similar plans are being adopted by other nations around the world.

Spoiled opportunity: Harvard expert bemoans squandering of model for cap and trade
A detail of one of the graphics used during the talk.

Stavins, the Pratt Professor of Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School (HKS), talked about lawmakers' solution to acid rain Sept. 13 during a seminar held by the Kennedy School's Regulatory Policy Program, led by Joseph Aldy, assistant professor of public policy.

"I think it is fair to say that it offered … a compelling demonstration of cap and trade and, more generally, of market-based interventions for environmental problems," Stavins said.

Drawing on a working paper he authored with Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Richard Schmalensee, Stavins outlined the program's success as well as four "ironies"—one of which is today's conservative opposition to an idea that had wide support among Republicans.

"Conservatives have demonized their own policy innovation," Stavins said.

Other ironies include that the government did the right thing—reduce —for the wrong reason: to clean up the environment. Estimates of the program's benefits put the price of health improvements from improved air quality far higher than benefits to lakes and forests.

Another irony was that unrelated government action—rail deregulation—helped ensure the success of this environmental policy. Deregulation lowered the cost of shipping lower-sulfur coal around the country, making a more environmentally friendly fuel cheaper. Stavins' fourth point was that what the government gives, it can take away. Despite the program's success, recent judicial decisions and regulatory changes have essentially brought it to an end.

Cap and trade was considered a possible way to lower U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to fight climate change until the 2009 battles in Congress, which saw legislation pass the House and then die in the Senate. Republican opponents focused on a key difference between the 1990 and 2009 plans. In the cap and trade proposed for carbon dioxide, rather than giving away emission permits to get the system started, the law would have auctioned them off to emitters. This caused Republicans—some of whom doubt science anyway—to fight against it as a tax.

Objections based on fact or approach could have been negotiated, Stavins said. But instead of seeking explanation or compromise, the opposition mounted a campaign to demonize the legislation, labeling it "cap and tax" and in the process tarnishing the whole approach, he said.

The political demise of a cap-and-trade system leaves a straight-out carbon tax as an alternative, which Stavins said has even less chance of passage.

"If it is easy to demonize cap and trade as a tax, it's a lot easier to demonize a tax as a tax," Stavins said. "That probably means, given the political challenges of a carbon tax, the outlook for national policy is not good."

Explore further: Tackling climate change with new permits to pollute

Related Stories

Cap-and-trade trumps taxes for clean tech adoption

July 8, 2011

A cap-and-trade system is more likely than a carbon tax system to trigger the adoption of clean energy technologies, according to a study by professor Yihsu Chen at the University of California, Merced.

Carbon swap bank to beat climate change

January 6, 2011

Australian researchers have suggested that nations should abandon the concept of carbon emissions trading in favor of a carbon swap bank that might lead to genuine reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide greenhouse gas ...

Experts say cap and trade not enough

April 13, 2009

A team of researchers at Carnegie Mellon University report in a new policy brief that cap and trade climate policies alone will not be sufficient to put the nation on track to achieve a 50 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse ...

Recommended for you

First quantifiable observation of cloud seeding

January 23, 2018

A University of Wyoming researcher contributed to a paper that demonstrated, for the first time, direct observation of cloud seeding—from the growth of the ice crystals through the processes that occur in the clouds to ...

So much depends on a tree guard

January 23, 2018

In a big city, trees, like people, like their space. In a new study, researchers at Columbia University found that street trees protected by guards that stopped passersby from trampling the surrounding soil absorbed runoff ...

Frozen in time: Glacial archaeology on the roof of Norway

January 23, 2018

Climate change is one of the most important issues facing people today and year on year the melting of glacial ice patches in Scandinavia, the Alps and North America reveals and then destroys vital archaeological records ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2012
All that carbon claptrap stuff does is make more money for the companies and the gov. (in fines) and causes higher bills for the customers.
Unfortunately though I can see no other functional way to cause companies to reduce pollution output other than fines or customer boycotts and it's pretty hard to boycott the power company. Most companies private or public are not going to do anything that cuts into that bottom line unless they are forced into it.
1 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2012
AVISO*** Caca Del Toro ***AVISO*** Caca del toro ***AVISO

So in essence, this guy is claiming that had global warming initially been sold as a means of enhancing corporate bottom lines, that it (global warming) would not have met with rejection...I say bulls**t!

Global warming was rejected (is still being rejected) due to fraud, bogus science, huckster involvement, and complete lack of credible evidence.
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2012
Most companies private or public are not going to do anything that cuts into that bottom line unless they are forced into it.

This is true. It's important to understand that the purpose of any business - ANY BUSINESS - is to make money.
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2012

You are just plain wrong. Cap and trade minimizes the economic cost of achieving environmental goals. Rationality dictates that reductions in emissions by firms should depend on their cost of doing so and those costs do differ by firm and plant.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.