In The Blogs

Taxing Carbon

| Tue May. 5, 2009 3:19 PM PDT

Should environmentalists concerned about global warming support a quick, simple carbon tax rather than a complicated, long-term cap-and-trade plan? James Hansen thinks so, but Joe Romm explains the facts of life to him:

1. A carbon tax, particularly one capable of deep emissions reductions quickly, is a political dead end....

2. A carbon tax that could pass Congress would not be simple. Advocates of a tax argue that simplicity is one of its biggest benefits. Again, those advocates seem bizarrely unfamiliar with the tax code in spite of the fact that they pay taxes every year....

3. A carbon tax is woefully inadequate and incomplete as a climate strategy. Why? Well, for one, it doesn’t have mandatory targets and timetables. Thus it doesn’t guarantee specific emissions results and thus doesn’t guarantee specific climate benefits. Perhaps more important, it doesn’t allow us to join the other nations of the world in setting science-based targets and timetables. Also, a tax lacks all of the key complementary measures — many of which are in Waxman-Markey — that are essential to any rational climate policy, but which inherently complicate any comprehensive energy and climate bill.

It's true that in some pure economic sense a tax is a more efficient way of pricing carbon than a cap-and-trade plan. But that's only if you get exactly the tax you want (you won't) and only if you accept a very specific sense of the word "efficient" (which you shouldn't). And even if you magically got the simple, efficient tax you wanted, a tax lacks the one critical thing that cap-and-trade provides: a cap. End of story. If you want to reduce greenhouse gases, the best way to do it is to cap them. This is something the public can easily understand. The trading scheme that comes along with it is, admittedly, complex, but it's only there to allow us to go after the low hanging fruit first and reduce the cost of complying with the cap. It's the cap itself that's key.

Like Romm, I don't really understand how it is that smart people don't get this. Politically, cap-and-trade is the only climate plan that has even a remote chance of getting through Congress, it's the only plan that institutes a firm limit on greenhouse gases, and it's the only plan on the table. Is it really worth giving all that up for the chimera of a tax that has some esoteric technical advantages on a whiteboard, but in the real world can't pass and wouldn't solve the carbon problem even if it did? It's hard to see why anyone serious about real-world change would buy into this.

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Comments

The exact same arguments can

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 3:33 PM PDT.

The exact same arguments can be made for cap and trade. You won't get the cap and trade you want. It will be gamed. It will not be simple. It is quite likely (as seen in 2009) a political dead end. I don't understand why smart people don't get this. (Gore at least favors both cap and trade and a carbon tax.) Oh yeah, thanks for falling into the ad hominem of "serious" trap. Blow me Drum, on many occasions, on many issues, (bank breakups, fair trade) you have demonstrated by the same logic how you are not a serious individual.

There's your answer, Kevin

Submitted by ars (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 3:43 PM PDT.

When you read Anon's comment above, you begin to see what those of us who have been working on this issue for a while realized long ago: carbon tax advocates are very angry, all the time. Theirs is the superior policy, and they will brook! no! compromise! I don't really get it with Hansen either, though. You'd think he'd been around the block enough times to know better. I guess he's just more of a scientist than a politician.

Perhaps you should learn to

Submitted by anon (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 4:01 PM PDT.

Perhaps you should learn to read. Or perhaps your own issues make it so you misread others. Maybe you are misreading on purpose and just aren't a serious individual.

tax is best

Submitted by njwilson on Tue May. 5, 2009 3:46 PM PDT.

Why do you think that experts in Washington know what the proper carbon level is? Let's say that we put a $1 a ton tax on carbon and, amazingly, we cut carbon by 35%. Then I would argue that a tax was far better than a cap 20% below current levels. Now, of course, that was an absurd example. But the experts in Washington could guess what tax would reduce carbon by the desired level. If they guessed correctly then the tax would be far more efficient. If you think a tax is complicated then why do you think a cap and trade system wouldn't be ten times as complicated? Don't forget that a cap and trade is the exact equivalent of a complicated carbon tax. Having said all this. I agree that the tax is dead on Capitol Hill.

No Cap

Submitted by Mario on Tue May. 5, 2009 3:49 PM PDT.

A cap has the potential to reduce emissions below the level justified by the climate risks. In other words, it is possible that we would be imposing costs on society greater than the cost we are trying to prevent. That's unacceptable. The cost of the tax should be equal to the cost of the externalities; a tax can do that, a cap can't. A tax will automatically adjust to economic changes, a cap can't, unless you are willing to introduce even more avenues for corruption than already exist. This isn't efficiency in just a "pure economic sense," this is plain, normal efficiency.

Huh?

Submitted by Al on Tue May. 5, 2009 3:51 PM PDT.

" a tax lacks the one critical thing that cap-and-trade provides: a cap." Huh? Of course, a tax is in effect a cap. The higher the tax, the lower the cap - activity that is uneconomical at a certain tax level will not occur. Just the same as a cap. It's odd. Kevin and others intuitively understand that a cap is a tax. But for some reason, they don't understand that a tax is a cap. I don't really understand how it is that smart people don't get this.

"I don't really understand

Submitted by stefan2 (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 4:23 PM PDT.

"I don't really understand how it is that smart people don't get this. Politically, cap-and-trade is the only climate plan that has even a remote chance of getting through Congress, it's the only plan that institutes a firm limit on greenhouse gases, and it's the only plan on the table. " One big issue here is the international dimension any carbon limitation scheme must have. With a carbon tax we can do tax harmonization (like VAT harmonization in the EU) and have basically an 'equal effort' standard across countries with very different standards of development and different growth rates and technological and natural resource endowments. With a cap and trade scheme the 'equal effort' standard is much less clear: how much should a high emissions slow growing country reduce its emissions compared to a low emissions high growth country? Should wealthy and poor countries aim at similar per capita caps (which would be crazy if you can get say 20 times as much output in the high productivity country than in the low productivity country, and low productivity countries would specialize in producing and selling high carbon emission products). Cap-and-trade sounds simple if you forget that there are lots of countries with very different levels of income and resource endowments out there. One might suppose that one could trade emission allowances internationally, but I don't think coming up with the initial allocation is going to be easy, since its going to be about international transfers in the hundreds of billions annually.

Why do you think that

Submitted by David Houghton (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 4:25 PM PDT.

Why do you think that experts in Washington know what the proper carbon level is?

Huh? What? Are they not experts because some of them are in Washington? Or are you denying the possibility of expertise on this issue? The idea is that if anyone knows what the proper level is, it's probably the experts.

A cap has the potential to reduce emissions below the level justified by the climate risks. In other words, it is possible that we would be imposing costs on society greater than the cost we are trying to prevent. That's unacceptable.

Yeah, but in the long run we're all dead. It's obvious from your post that you're someone who doesn't see a lot of urgency in the whole climate issue. Instead you're worried that you might pay a penny too much in taxes. If you think the whole climate change thing is a crock, then this is a reasonable conclusion. Not so much otherwise.

" a tax lacks the one critical thing that cap-and-trade provides: a cap." Huh? Of course, a tax is in effect a cap.

I don't think you've been paying attention to this issue long enough. Yes, everyone sees that both the tax and the cap are likely to reduce the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere. The tax guarantees the government will make some money off of that. The cap guarantees that only a specified quantity of carbon goes up there. The reason it's called cap is that it "caps" the amount of carbon. The tax doesn't do this. That's why it isn't a cap. I'm beginning to think a lot of the carbon tax folks are concern trolls. They can sound like they earnestly want to do something about climate change. In fact, they can get all righteous about doing it the economically proper way. But their preferred solution is strong on economic benefit, weak on environmental benefit, and most importantly, a political impossibility. It's the smartest position if you're a concern troll and want to kill climate change legislation.

Yeah, not serious concern trolls

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 4:35 PM PDT.

And they are hairy and fat blah blah blah. Or maybe you dislike them because they disagree with you. And smarty pants, the gov't makes money in many cap and trade schemes by auctioning off the permits (the ones that aren't given for patronage that is.) jeez Kevin, are you certain you're aligned with the smart serious non troll crowd?

Calm Down

Submitted by Mario on Tue May. 5, 2009 4:52 PM PDT.

Worrying about the level of carbon is simply the wrong way to look at the problem. By setting a firm cap, you are implicitly saying that there is no increase in the general welfare that can justify a small amount of increased emissions. That just doesn't make sense. Every time we have the opportunity to produce something worth more than the cost it inflicts on the environment, we should take it. Anytime the thing we produce is doing more harm than good, we should stop producing it. That's what a tax accomplishes. The environment may be valuable, but its value isn't infinite. Given the vitriol in your comment, though, I have to assume this issue is too close to you for you to take it rationally. Fine. {I should point out that the person that recommended your comment was me, unintentionally, trying to reply. I wouldn't have bothered, except that I'd hate to think that my inadvertent action may encourage you to comment like that more often.}

You're writing about this

Submitted by David Houghton (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 5:31 PM PDT.

You're writing about this like an undergraduate in a philosophy seminar. I don't mean that as a cutting comparison. Undergraduates in philosophy seminars may be fine people, but they aren't trying to pass legislation. Sure, there are costs to environmental legislation. Who denies this? This is a straw man. Here's the issue: we've gone way beyond a safe level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is the international consensus among experts. There's no chance really of passing cap and trade legislation adequate to address the problem. So, if your concern is addressing the problem, now is not the time to dither about tax efficiency. It's cap and trade or nothing. About this:

By setting a firm cap, you are implicitly saying that there is no increase in the general welfare that can justify a small amount of increased emissions.

No. You are simply making a decision. If after sufficient time you come to think the cap is set wrong -- maybe you think it is leading to a net decrease in general welfare -- you make a new decision. The cap is firm only for a period. Sure, this is government planning of the economy to a greater extent than a tax would be. Sure, that's less efficient than a tax. But this inefficiency is worth it. It hurts to get stitches, too, but you get stitches if it's a choice between that and bleeding to death.

Kevin, Why don't you point

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 4:37 PM PDT.

Kevin, Why don't you point to the times that Cap and Trade have been implemented AND work and maybe even been embraced by what had been opponents to it. My understanding is that cap and trade in the fisheries is now looked on by many fisherman as a very good thing.

Have to disagree with you Kevin

Submitted by Tlaloc (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 4:56 PM PDT.

Put me in the group of people who doesn't get why you think it is impossible to get a working carbon tax but possible to get a working cap and trade. By its very nature cap and trade is much more open to being manipulated and gamed (since it is a game in the first place you can hardly complain when people treat it as such). It is further more hard to explain to people that global warming is a serious issue but rather than doing something concrete we just need to put in place a sleight of hand that lets the worst polluters continue to pollute. It's not like GOP opposition will be any less to the CnT route. They've already made noises calling such a plan an "energy tax." They'll be dead against it no matter what. SO why bother trying to appease them when it can't happen? It's the same thing Obama tried with the Stimulus and all his overtures only meant we ended up with a much worse bill. Any cap and trade you can actually get passed by a margin different than that with which you could pass a carbon tax will be worse than nothing at all.

You seriously don't think

Submitted by JeffF (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 10:26 PM PDT.

You seriously don't think that passing a "carbon tax" is harder than passing a "carbon cap and trade and zzzzz zzzz oh uh what where you talking about, I seem to have dozed off"? I am entirely certain that if you had it in your power to change the name of the policy from "cap and trade" to "carbon tax" you could go to Exxon today and get tens of millions of dollars from them to do it. Possibly hundreds of millions.

"cap-and-trade is the only

Submitted by stefan2 (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 5:06 PM PDT.

"cap-and-trade is the only ... plan that institutes a firm limit on greenhouse gases" Sorry, but all implemented cap-and-trade plans have emergency price caps...if the price at which permits trade exceeds a ceiling, the regulating authority issues additional permits. The EU system works this way and so will any actual cap-and-trade system ever implemented. And its a good thing, since the system will otherwise be gamed by traders who will manipulate the market and rip off permit users. Think the CA spot electricity market... So no, cap-and-trade doesn't have a 'firm limit' on emissions, but a target that it can exceed.

Yes, not too surprisingly,

Submitted by stefan2 (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 5:23 PM PDT.

Yes, not too surprisingly, the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill has a emergency price ceiling. See http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2009/04/21/parsing-the-waxman-mark... Indeed, as written the bill makes hitting tehse price ceiling and staying there for quite some time not unlikely. Which would convert the scheme into a carbon tax -- a good thing in my view. So what we have here is cap-and-trade which sets a limit on the maximum carbon emission reduction we're going to get and, if we don't hit that limit, a carbon tax. Which strikes me as pretty good policy, except for its hidden nature. But that may be a feature and not a bug.

Why not do both?

Submitted by Tom Fuller (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 5:29 PM PDT.

Why not do both? Set a low level carbon tax and publish a rate schedule of rises from $2 per ton now to $14/ton by 2050. Set the cap and trade inversely. Hypothecate the revenues raised to mitigate extra taxes/fees paid by consumers and small businesses. This will compensate for the games politicians play in the first few years, such as exemptions, tax credits, etc. If we over-raise revenues, we can give them back if we want. But pollution of all sorts has been an uncosted externality for so long that it won't be the end of the world if a little extra money rolls in for mitigation.

Obama campaigned on

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 5:43 PM PDT.

Obama campaigned on AUCTIONING ALL Cap and Trade permits. But Henry Waxman acknowledges the reality is that Obama will permit Congress a wide latitude in implementation, including the very likely give away of permits. Marketplace: Controversy over pollution permits : Congress is considering global warming legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions. But, there is controversy over how to control the emissions, and whether to give the carbon allowances away or make emitters pay. Sarah Gardner reports. " Congress has a choice: to give those carbon allowances away or make emitters pay. Yale's William Nordhaus says economically, it's a no-brainer. A license to pollute is a valuable commodity. WILLIAM NORDHAUS: And we shouldn't give it away. Just as we don't give away outer continental shelf oil, we don't give away the airwaves, we shouldn't give away the rights to emit CO2. President Obama's budget director told Congress cap-and-trade handouts would amount to "the largest corporate welfare program" in U.S. history. And Obama campaigned on auctioning off 100 percent of the permits. He wants to use the proceeds to fund a middle-class tax cut and clean energy R&D. One problem though. Politicians from coal and oil states are balking. GENE GREEN: I have five refineries in my district and a lot of chemical plants. And even a middle-class tax cut to someone who doesn't have a job doesn't help. That's House Democrat Gene Green of Texas. He's referring to industries that complain that carbon permits simply increase their costs and put them at a disadvantage to foreign competitors. Refiners are pushing Congress to get 30 percent of their carbon permits free. Electric utilities want 40 percent. Today Henry Waxman, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said President Obama will give lawmakers "wide latitude" to strike a deal. But David Doniger at the Natural Resources Defense Council is wary. DAVID DONIGER: You just can't give power generators a lot of free allowances, no strings attached. They just end up with huge windfalls. Doniger points to Europe as an example. It gave away lots of free carbon allowances. Utilities there pocketed billions by raising electricity rates anyway and selling off excess permits. Johns Hopkins professor Scott Barrett says we shouldn't repeat the EU's biggest mistake: giving out too many permits. SCOTT BARRETT: And what that means is there's too much of the stuff around and therefore the price at which these permits are traded was too low. And because the price was too low very little was done to reduce emissions. And reducing emissions, says Barrett, is the whole point of cap and trade in the first place. "

It's naive to think that any

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 5:46 PM PDT.

It's naive to think that any system will remain ungamed. That's just the nature of the human experiment. With respect to Kevin, once again, the comments here are at least as valuable if not more so than the original post. Except that is for commenters that call others troll or concern troll. Those comments are less than zero.

Jesus Christ, just pick one

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 6:37 PM PDT.

Jesus Christ, just pick one and pass it! The vast majority of us don't give a crap whether it's a tax or a cap.

To me the most important

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 6:41 PM PDT.

To me the most important thing is not whether it's a cap or a tax, but whether the revenue is rebated. Rebate vs. no rebate is make-or-break, cap vs. tax is not.

Offset Difficulties

Submitted by Hedgie (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 7:20 PM PDT.

tagged as:

result

Kevin, experience with actual carbon markets show they don't work to reduce emissions. They are too susceptible to fraud and the international issues are too complicated. See http://pesd.stanford.edu/publications/a_realistic_policy_on_internationa.... That said, a tax won't ever get passed.

Science, Economics and Politics

Submitted by James Handley (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 8:06 PM PDT.

Is there a weird Heisenberg principle in the climate debate? Seems there are three sets of reality, but no one accepts all three: 1) Climate Science (Unlimited fossil fuel burning threatens to destroy civilization in short order), 2) Economics (Prices matter, perhaps more than anything else in determining aggregate purchasing behavior), 3) Political Reality (Politicians can't openly impose taxes and survive, even if the tax is revenue-neutral: offset by reductions in other taxes or direct distributions). The science is no longer debatable; the risk is too high to continue debate. The economics is well-established but less widely accepted by environmental advocates accustomed to regulations. The third may be true, but if we're serious about the climate crisis, it's our job to change the politics; it's the only one that can be changed. It's a matter of changing minds, not a matter of altering fundamental scientific or economic principles. We're not there yet. But this discussion (not the article) gives me hope. Cap-and-trade is simply a hidden, volatile and regressive tax that doesn't carry the stigma of being called a "tax." Fortunately, Republicans and economists are pointing out that cap/trade is a tax. Once that fact sinks in (and Waxman-Markey sinks under its own weight) I hope we can have a serious discussion about how best to price carbon. The sooner, the better.

"Seems there are three sets

Submitted by JeffF (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 10:12 PM PDT.

"Seems there are three sets of reality, but no one accepts all three" Uhh... those three are roots of the cap & trade & auction idea which is hardly an obscure position. Anyone who did not accept #1 would have no interest in any greenhouse gas reduction scheme. Anyone who did not accept #2 would insist on a traditional pollution limitation scheme rather than either a carbon tax or cap & trade & auction. Anyone who did not accept #3 would be more inclined to support a carbon tax. To me it seems that anyone who rejects any one of those has a poor grasp of reality. "Cap-and-trade is simply a hidden, volatile and regressive tax..." A carbon tax would be similarly hidden (worked into the prices of stuff for the vast majority of people and businesses) and regressive. I imagine it would be less volatile in terms of revenue, but emissions would probably be more volatile. Mechanisms exist to spread revenue over time, and year to year emissions variations shouldn't be important in themselves so that isn't much of a downside. One nice thing about the cap & trade price is that it would be automatically counter cyclical. Credits would cost more in boom times and less in slack times like today. There would be a bit of automatic economic stabilization there. "Once that fact sinks in..." The thing about facts is that for a large fraction of the population (probably a majority) they never sink in. At best they stick lightly to the surface. A policy who's simplest description is two words the second of which is "Tax" is always going to be less popular than one that someone has to explain for a minute or two to show that it is in the end not much different from a tax. Always. That difference alone is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing, who knows how many points in the polls, etc. The right would LOVE to be running against a "carbon tax" instead of a "carbon cap and trade plan". I am reminded of some recent republican genius. The "Death tax". That isn't just loony rhetoric it is carefully designed and focus tested language. There is something like a 20% swing in polling when questions are asked about the "death tax" rather than the "inheritance tax". I think it goes from 60% for to 60% against. When it comes down to it the policies are fairly equivalent if enacted. The main differences is that Cap & trade has a chance of being enacted this year while a carbon tax does not have a chance of being enacted for the next two years and possibly many more. Time is an issue here. Every year of delay is a year of emissions growing without control and more reductions that will have to be made later. I agree completely with Kevin and don't understand how people cannot.

"And even if you magically

Submitted by MaynardHandley on Tue May. 5, 2009 8:51 PM PDT.

"And even if you magically got the simple, efficient tax you wanted, a tax lacks the one critical thing that cap-and-trade provides: a cap." Hmm. If only there were some EMPIRICAL way of testing this statement. Like if we looked at how this has already played out in Europe. Oh dear --- not a great advertisement for cap-and-trade. Well maybe in other non-carbon markets where cap-and-trade has been tried, like the California RECLAIM market? Oh dear, didn't work there either. Look, Kevin, those of us opposed to cap-and-trade aren't just being tools. We are interested in, you know, policies that ACTUALLY FSCKING WORK. If what gets passed by Congress won't actually solve the problem, then what the hell does it matter whether or not it is feasible? More details on my claims here: http:// name99.org/blog99/?p=325

So where has a carbon tax

Submitted by JeffF (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 10:21 PM PDT.

So where has a carbon tax worked? Has one even been successfully enacted anywhere yet? The SOx cap and trade system in the US is successful. Cap & Trade fishing regulation was successful in Iceland (unfortunately they just blew all the money on unregulated banking). Either policy requires a tremendous amount of political will to make it effective. If that does not exist obviously either will fail. The cap will be too large or there will be many exemptions or the tax will be too low or enforcement will be weak or nothing will ever be enacted or the developing world will never be brought in... If cap & trade is enacted and fails we could try a carbon tax in a few years. I don't see the political will magically vanishing just because one policy fails as the environmental damage continues to get more and more obvious.

"So where has a carbon tax

Submitted by MaynardHandley on Tue May. 5, 2009 10:35 PM PDT.

"So where has a carbon tax worked? Has one even been successfully enacted anywhere yet?" Alcohol and tobacco taxes have worked well as part of a grand strategy to reduce alcohol and tobacco consumption. Gasoline taxes have behaved exactly as you'd expect in reducing European demand for gasoline. In both cases the taxes are simple and clean, there is no need to create a complicated system of carve-outs and giveaways, and the population understands what is being done, and while they may not be wildly enthusiastic about these taxes, they accept their necessity. I'd say the evidence that taxes reduce the amount of what they are taxing, and do so transparently, is substantially higher than is the case for cap-and-trade.

People also ought to think

Submitted by JeffF (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 10:48 PM PDT.

People also ought to think about the future here, the medium term future. Say 5-10 years out. Say enacting a carbon tax this year was just as easy as enacting a cap & trade & auction system for some odd reason (a hit pop song demands it or something). In either case the limit isn't very limiting at first. The cap is only a bit below what we would have emitted anyway or the tax is pretty low and doesn't effect behavior dramatically. So we have a system. In subsequent years we need to turn the screws on and get some serious reductions. In the carbon tax scenario each time we want to turn the screws we have to decide on a limit then decide on a tax to achieve that limit then pass a tax increase. The opposition has to say "cut taxes". In the cap & trade scenario we have to decide on a limit and pass it. The opposition has to say "that cap is to restrictive for the economy and unnecessary". I know which fight I would rather have year after year after year.

I tend to agree that I think

Submitted by Royko on Tue May. 5, 2009 11:00 PM PDT.

I tend to agree that I think cap and trade has a better chance of passing than a carbon tax (although part of this I think is that various players think they might be able to water down a cap and trade plan to their favor.) On the other hand, Kevin, you seem to be reaching on a couple points. You know as well as everyone that a carbon tax will reduce emissions. How much is difficult to say, and sure, there's no hard "cap", but I expect that one could project the impact of a tax (and the amount it reduces emissions) pretty accurately. And more than that, due to the horse trading over a cap-and-trade plan, I don't think that hard "cap" will be quite as firm as you think it will. It will be subject to all sorts of accounting measures and manipulations, not to mention loopholes. I think when you get to the reality of the situation, all you can really say is that both mechanisms will reduce emissions, and how much will be greatly subject to the messy political process involved. So no, I don't see having a "cap", however it's measured, however it's legislated, is really going to be that much more reassuring than projections on a carbon tax. You also say of a cap: "This is something the public can easily understand." Well, yeah. But they can also easily understand a tax. And with a tax, they'd be able to easily see the external costs of their purchases and activities and be able to adjust where they think it makes the most sense. A cap and trade system can have this effect, too, but more indirectly, and subject to the machinations of the trading system that is largely out of the public view. I'd say, of the two systems, cap and trade has a much better chance of getting mucked around with in the legislative process and the end result is certainly going to be more complicated than with a tax, and the ins and outs are going to be harder for the public to understand and follow. But, to me, that's part of cap and trade's advantage: the public doesn't like taxes. Cap and trade is an easier sell (with the public) because they likely won't understand the effects until after it's passed. Personally, I don't care that much what plan we use, as long as emissions are reduced. If cap and trade is all that's on the table, I'm happy to push for the best cap and trade we can get.

another advantage of cap and trade

Submitted by rockyjoe (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 11:15 PM PDT.

Philosophically I support a carbon tax. Cap and trade will create an entire industry of traders who will make a lot of money off this. However I have come to see this as a feature, not a bug. This policy has to live well beyond the Obama years, and the carbon trading industry will be a rich and powerful lobby to support its continuation. A tax can be repealed in a heartbeat.

carbon tax

Submitted by CTF (not verified) on Wed May. 6, 2009 5:29 AM PDT.

First of all, I support a revenue-neutral carbon tax and can assure you that I am not "angry." Further, agree wholeheartedly with James Hansen--a revenue-neutral carbon tax (or preferably, a carbon tax shift approach) avoids the creation of a complicated and convoluted "subprime carbon market," avoids the evasion and market manipulation inherent to cap and trade, is more straightforward and transparent than cap and trade, incentivizes the creation of green technology, predictably reduces emissions AND returns the revenue to the people (especially attractive given these political and economic times.) It’s a win for the economy and a win for the environment and it's an alternative to cap and trade that members on both sides of the aisle should be able to support.

We don't need ANY more taxes!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed May. 6, 2009 6:47 PM PDT.

We don't need ANY more taxes! Taxes are already killing our companies and destroying our future and the future of our children! Cap and Trade "would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy, all without any scientific justification," says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence. More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/ Additionally, more than 30,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." http://www.petitionproject.org "Progressive" (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the United Nations and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes and increase the cost of energy, which will limit development, destroy our economy and enslave us. If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama's Wall Street friends), increase the power of the United Nations and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.

thnks for your post. it's

Submitted by Rodger Bush (not verified) on Wed May. 13, 2009 11:57 PM PDT.

thnks for your post. it's wonderful.....

shoppingugg

Submitted by uggs (not verified) on Fri May. 29, 2009 9:43 PM PDT.

tagged as:

In 1993, only 1 percent of Columbia's overall business came from footwear, with the lion's share of its revenue coming from its outerwear business. Last year, footwear accounted for 17 percent of the business, and that growth is only expected to continue. [To see a roundup of outdoor footwear firms' most recent earnings, see page 39.]