With cap-and-trade, the emission of carbon would be limited, and market forces would be harnessed to drive low-carbon innovations. Barring the disproving of anthropogenic global warming (not likely), green technology is our future—our choice is to import it or to create it at home. We could tax carbon directly and use the proceeds to subsidize clean tech, but cap-and-trade would both be more effective in limiting emissions, and be more efficient in developing low-carbon technology, since the development of this technology would be shaped by the free market, not by bureaucrats. Most essentially, technologies developed under cap-and-trade would be much more likely to be viable in the international market, since they would represent the most cost-efficient reductions in carbon emissions.
Jesse Laymon
I think a simple carbon fee would work a little more efficiently than cap-and-trade, but either would be a big improvement to the status quo of socialized costs and privatized profits from the fossil fuel-dependent industries.
Reshma Saujani
I agree. Cap-and-trade will be a great way to incentivize companies to start innovating and create sustainable solutions to deal with carbon emissions. As with so many other issues in the last year, the House has passed a strong cap-and-trade bill, but it has been bogged down in the Senate. With health care, financial reform, immigration and other issues that need to be addressed soon, I hope that the Senate will find time to pass a strong cap-and-trade bill with bipartisan support. Senator Lindsey Graham has shown interest in a compromise that would implement cap-and-trade policies in exchange for new nuclear power plants and some off-shore drilling. President Obama has already taken action — illustrating his commitment to working with Republicans by allocating an additional $36 billion for nuclear power plants in his 2011 budget proposal. I hope other Republicans will follow Senator Graham’s lead and get behind a bipartisan energy bill.
Share
