Comments on: Cap and Trade is Really a Tax

By: danl

danl — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:34:51 +0000

docpine, jae:
The purpose of cap and trade over a carbon tax is that gives businesses a financial incentive to reduce their emissions, as opposed to simply the disincentive of polluting. This is established by the emissions trading– those who pollute under the number of permits they own can trade their excess permits for money.
Much of the original framework of emissions trading (from the 1970s and 80s- See Montgomery and Dales) had economic proofs that cap and trade is the most efficient, i.e. least-cost, method for meeting a desired emissions cut.
This is not to say that cap and trade does not have problems, specifically when applied to CO2. Just wanted to clear up a theoretical formulation most people seem to miss.

By: docpine

docpine — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 03:32:50 +0000

If people want success in some endeavor, there has been an expression- KISS for Keep It Simple, Stupid. Successful public policy is not about feathering the nests of interpreters and third parties, but establishing the closest linkage possible between desired behavior and rewards.
Can someone explain the perceived advantages of cap’n'trade over a tax?

By: stan

stan — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:22:25 +0000

Roger,

OT, but important — your father outlined his difficulties with Gavin’s unwillingness to act in accordance with scientific expectations. Gavin’s extraordinary measures to avoid accountability and obfuscate the issues have been detailed extensively by others, as well. His responses to the exposure of the dreadful quality control problems for temperature data boggled the mind.

Why does he have any credibility left? Why should the people who employ him to speak for them have any credibility?

How does the scientific community expect to maintain credibility over the long term when people like Gavin and Michael Mann have such prominence? If scientists don’t police the mess being created, they are going to find themselves splatted with what hits the fan.

By: tarpon

tarpon — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:16:55 +0000

Well I say it’s actually rationing of energy. Do you actually expect the total energy available to be expanded? No, it will result in ever higher prices.

Pay more in taxes to the government, so government scientists can fake the data, and pretend to control the climate. The perfect scam.

By: jae

jae — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:43:29 +0000

I say we let the marketplace make the calls for the development of “alternative energy.” Necessity, not the government, is the mother of invention! Since there is no real proof yet of any problems being caused by CO2, it is premature to do anything.

However, IF some type of government “forcing” is deemed necessary by the powers that be, I agree with Roger’s article. Cap ‘N Trade is still a tax, but potentially a corrupt one. Its only advantage over the straight tax appears to be that it a sneaky way to get a tax–its impact is hidden from the general public, many of whom still don’t understand that the gov. can’t really tax industry. And the true impact isn’t even known ahead of time. I also agree with the straightforward tax, because it would also keep more of the greedy middlemen from stealing much of the money and would not be subject to all the creative scams and enforcement bureaucracies that would be associated with cap and trade.