#74: oscars gone green
An Inconvenient Truth made quite a splash at the Oscars this year. So did Gore and DiCaprio by proudly proclaiming that the show had gone green. Pardon my cynicism but that sounded like another "I invented the internet" claim. I found some clarity through Charles Krauthammer's usual ranting column.
It appears that the Academy neutralised the "carbon footprint" of the gala by buying carbon credits (aka paying a "carbon broker," who promised, after taking his cut, to reduce equivalent carbon emissions somewhere on the planet). And that would typically be a coal-fired power-plant somewhere half-way across the globe.
This appears to be a cost efficient solution, since coal-fired plants in China and India have the greatest potential to reduce carbon emissions. The marginal dollars ought to chase the highest marginal gains. Call it outsourcing or economic mumbo-jumbo, if you want.
But in turn, it creates a moral-hazard problem from an incentive mismatch. What dissuades an operator in China and India from starting up another sooty plant, in anticipation of the day another ex-Veep will trade a few more dollars for more carbon credits? The more he pollutes today the more he can earn from his credits tomorrow. And that beats the whole purpose, doesn't it? Any suggestions?
It appears that the Academy neutralised the "carbon footprint" of the gala by buying carbon credits (aka paying a "carbon broker," who promised, after taking his cut, to reduce equivalent carbon emissions somewhere on the planet). And that would typically be a coal-fired power-plant somewhere half-way across the globe.
This appears to be a cost efficient solution, since coal-fired plants in China and India have the greatest potential to reduce carbon emissions. The marginal dollars ought to chase the highest marginal gains. Call it outsourcing or economic mumbo-jumbo, if you want.
But in turn, it creates a moral-hazard problem from an incentive mismatch. What dissuades an operator in China and India from starting up another sooty plant, in anticipation of the day another ex-Veep will trade a few more dollars for more carbon credits? The more he pollutes today the more he can earn from his credits tomorrow. And that beats the whole purpose, doesn't it? Any suggestions?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home