Testimony at the New York Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative Rules Hearing
H. William Batt
GroundSwell, November-December 2007]
(The following testimony by Dr. William Batt of the
Central Research Group, Inc. was given at the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority (NYSERDA) on December 10, 2007.)
Nobel Prize Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz, now at Columbia
University, had a column in the recent December 7 issue of The
Guardian, expressing his concern a better word would be alarm
about the way current solutions for Carbon Emissions are
being introduced. In his piece, he stated, and I quote: "the
problem of global warming is so vast that every instrument must be
"Better incentives must be part of the solution. But there
is a raging controversy over whether the Kyoto protocol's
cap-and-trade system or taxes work better. The problem with the
Kyoto system is assigning caps that will be acceptable to developed
and developing countries. Giving emission allowances is like giving
away money -- potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. "
Given the choice, he favors taxes, but using both measures would
be even better. The current session of Congress has two bills,
reflective of the competing approaches to climate change solutions.
HR 2069, the Stark/McDermott "Save Our Climate Act of 2007"
would enact a carbon tax. S. 280 introduced by Senators Lieberman
and McCain, called the "Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act
of 2007", establishes a program for market-driven reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions through the use of tradable allowances.
Lieberman/McCain would sell the pollution rights outright.
It appears that our NYS DEC seems to favor the latter, and the
morality underlying this design is, as Dr. Stiglitz points out, very
questionable. Why should we turn over the ownership of the air, or
any part of it, to private industry! Our most environmentally minded
state agency is lining up behind the most conservative approach to
the problem, and this is not defensible.
Not very long ago, we witnessed the publication of a plethora of
articles and books decrying the sale of titles to water in many
areas to private corporations. Some places saw such strong reactions
to these changes that governments were overthrown -- Bolivia's
President Evo Morales came to power due to this event more than any
other. Privatization of the natural world has been an ongoing
process now at least three centuries old but its a
practice increasingly recognized for its unsound, and even immoral,
The theft of what is called "the commons," the
birthright of all humanity, continues encroaching upon many new
realms in this past century alone. The US government first granted
pieces of the electromagnetic spectrum to various radio stations in
the late 1920s, even while reassuring everyone that "the public
owns the airwaves." As pieces of that spectrum are allocated
today, now at least for a sale price, it is viewed as "property,"
in much the same way as is my car, my computer or my refrigerator.
We've seen the same thing happen to the time slots at airports,
something the airlines regard as corporate assets, even when they
don't use them efficiently. There are many other realms of nature
that have either been seized by, or else simply granted to, private
entities with little regard for the public. Where will it end?
Now we're about to turn over parts of the air itself to the
utilities so that they can use it as their dump, a betrayal of the
public that in every respect equals prior betrayals. To be sure, the
air may be capable of absorbing a certain moderate level of
pollution, as a sink, just as do rivers and oceans sometimes can in
their way. But the proper way to allocate the use of such a
privilege is not by sale but by auction rental. Rental on a regular
and frequent basis would assure that a price was always reflective
of the true market, something that a one-time only lump sum sale can
Professor Stiglitz, as noted earlier, believes that "every
instrument must be employed." In another piece by the
Worldwatch Institute, Brookings and several other notables, he
expressed his support for a carbon tax of $15 per metric ton of
Carbon Dioxide, which would offset the federal payroll tax on the
first $3,660 of earnings per worker. This design parallels in
several respects the Alaska Permanent Fund program, in which
royalties from oil are placed in a trust and paid yearly to every
citizen of that state. It also closely follows the proposal of Peter
Barnes who suggested, in his book, Who Owns the Sky, that every
individual citizen could receive a dividend from the Sky Share
program, the amount depending on how tightly the threshold of
emissions was set.
The RGGI program as it is now written, would give control over a
large part of the air to private interests on a once-and-for-all
basis. Let me ask: Do we really want to turn over to utility
companies one more piece of the common birthright of all mankind.
There was supposed to be a quid pro quo when such a grant was made
to the broadcast stations in 1928: they then pledged that the public
would be served by must carry requirements and other
public services. What happened? It is better with respect to the
disposition of pollution rights that the air space be periodically
rented by auction on a regular basis. That way rules and laws can be
secured that will better guarantee that the public interest is
served and that a proper price will be paid for what is, after all,
the commons that we all share.