View Full Version : Cap-and-trade - a good compromise?

Jason T
07-22-2008, 06:56 PM
Cato has me thinking.


[I]f reducing our carbon footprint is the goal, then the most direct and efficient means of reducing that footprint is to impose a tax on carbon emissions and then leave it to the market to sort out how to most efficiently order affairs under those new prices. Maybe it will mean windmills and CNG, but maybe not. Perhaps it will mean more nuclear power, new hydrogen-powered fuel cells, "clean" coal, the emergence of cellulosic ethanol, battery-powered cars or hybrids—or a continuation of the existing energy base but less consumption as a consequence.

Whether you like it or not, one of the two things are going to happen; cap-and-trade or massive subsidies to government chosen industries.

As much as I hate cap-and-trade, I think it may be better than the other option. The government track record is pretty bad afterall - their big answer to alternative energy was corn ethanol. The problem about letting government decide what to support is that they don't chose the most efficient form of energy, rather they chose to support the form of energy that's in their politician interest to support.

Since the government is going to continue to choose inefficient forms of energy to prop up and just prolong the pain, is it worth it to just give up now and support cap-and-trade?

07-22-2008, 06:56 PM
It's just another form of fiat currency and an assertion of the right to pollute.

07-22-2008, 07:49 PM
It is all a nonsensical distraction.

Increased atmospheric CO2 is a RESULT of global warming periods not a cause of them!

Jason T
07-22-2008, 08:17 PM
I disagree with both proposals. Just want to find out what's the best of two evils.

07-23-2008, 05:38 AM
How about bid for the pollution per ton and the money gets distributed to the people based on how far away you are from the point of pollution. Do this for the entire country, really easy to figure out too once you get the system set up, I've already work the algorithm out for a possible program.

At least then the money goes to the property owners and not the government like it should and companies also have incentive to be more eco friendly cause it will save them money.