I’m not a big fan of “cap and trade” anti-pollution
programs. These programs set a ceiling on how much of a certain pollutant – in
this case, greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide – can be lawfully added to the environment and then require large industrial
polluters to “buy” permits to exceed their quotas.
These market-based programs are rely on an acceptance of
certain pollution levels and set up a system for industry to buy “licenses to pollute.” But my preferred method of simply mandating cuts
in pollution is less palatable in our free market society. So this is what we have.
Rhode Island is part of a 10-state compact called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) that conducts regional “auctions” of licenses to pollute that are bought by large industries that intend to emit large amounts of greenhouse gasses. They bid against each other for these licenses, and that generates cash that RGGI then distributes to the participating states on a proportional basis.
We got that done a year and a half ago, and it was great.
The RISE technician did a detailed analysis of our home and identified a number
of very practical things we could do to cut our energy costs.
They then made a list of both large and small home
improvement projects we could do to save energy dollars. A few months later,
they called me back to say that they had received new RGGI funding and the
larger projects, the ones I couldn’t do myself, were now eligible for a
substantial discount.
It was a great deal, and we eagerly took them up on the
offer. Their techs came out, did the work and the cost was a few hundred bucks
to save at least that much in energy – and the costs were further reduced
because they were eligible for a federal income tax energy credit.
RGGI reports that the Rhode Island money went into a variety
of large and small projects that boosted Rhode Island economic activity by $77
million – that’s the “multiplier effect” that happens when you invest in
infrastructure – creating the equivalent of 630 jobs.
While “cap-and-trade” is a complicated way of solving
pollution problems, and I still am uncomfortable with the “license to pollute”
aspect of it, there are a lot of tangible upsides to it. Without RGGI, we may
or may not have sprung the money to pay for the energy audit, and may or may
not have followed through on the improvements called for by that audit.
I had suggested that Charlestown
ought to think creatively about its energy issues, especially since we will
once again step into the breech at the June Town Council meeting where the
11,658th draft of the dark sky lighting ordinance is scheduled to be
heard.
Dark-sky friendly lighting doesn’t have to be primarily
driven by an ordinance or town regulations. It could be driven by
self-interest, since effective compliance will generally involve using energy
efficient lights for fewer hours. If Charlestown
made dark-sky lighting town policy (as
opposed to town law) and did a
better job of public education (and not just preaching), that could set the
stage for more community cooperation.
If Charlestown took two further practical steps – one, by
lining up discounts for town residents that it could get by asking from the
non-profit Energy Federation, and second, by seeking to secure funding through
RGGI to help homeowners and businesses convert, only the most ornery,
unneighborly property owners would fail to respond.
Rather than try to pass an ordinance that is pointless or unenforceable, why not simply stop thinking about this as a legislative or regulatory problem, but rather as a community problem, and act accordingly?
Rather than try to pass an ordinance that is pointless or unenforceable, why not simply stop thinking about this as a legislative or regulatory problem, but rather as a community problem, and act accordingly?
Here is the two-page summary RGGI releases on how the
initiative works in and benefits Rhode
Island .
