TW: I oppose cap and trade for two reasons- there are better ways to effect carbon reductions (i.e. an explicit carbon tax) and cap and trade to me is highly susceptible to regulatory capture and congressional manipulation (even more than the usual shenanigans). The bill that passed the House reflects the latter challenge in spades.
The one aspect of cap and trade I like is that at least something is being done. If conservatives were out there beating the table for a carbon tax alternative I would be supportive but their alternative is to retain the status quo (and for some go off on climate change denial rants).
Cap and trade is an energy tax. Some support energy taxes because they believe the negative externalities (i.e. pollution, deploying troops in Middle East, supporting folks like Putin/Chavez/Ahmadinejad/Wahhibists etc.) associated with carbon based energy should be reflected in the prices paid by consumers. Other see carbon taxes as a huge potential revenue source.
The cap and trade bill passed by the House raises little revenue and hence does little initially to curb the negative externalities associated with carbon energy. The reason is circular. If the bill would have raised revenue then it would have gone down in flames as a "tax" bill, but now folks say it does not do enough to curb carbon emissions.
You do not have to believe in climate change in order to support a carbon energy tax of some support, the other negative externalities are sufficient from my perspective. Alternatively if you are interested in long-term fiscal security an energy tax is a powerful tool to deploy whilst addressing negative externalities.
The only wrong choice is the status quo. Cap and trade is deeply flawed but it does create a structure to raise revenues and curb negative externalities if at some point in the future the political will is created to act.
No comments:
Post a Comment