The carbon cap-and-trade system that many are pushing seems to be somewhat like medieval indulgences. An indulgence (from a Protestant perspective) was a document one could purchase in order to obtain forgiveness for sins. A company, or a country, can reduce its “guilt” for producing carbon dioxide by buying credits from another company/country that doesn’t produce as much CO2.
Some favor a carbon tax rather than the cap-and-trade system. A carbon tax would be simpler in terms of the bureaucracy involved, and would accomplish the same objectives (or might even be better at accomplishing those objectives).
The CEO of ExxonMobil makes a case for the carbon tax: Exxon Mobil CEO favors carbon tax over cap-and-trade (from the Houston Chronicle).
Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson says he favors a tax on carbon dioxide over a cap-and-trade system because it would be “a more direct and transparent approach.”
Neither of these options are popular with conservatives. I would say that a carbon tax (which will lead to higher prices for gasoline and other fossil fuel products) will encourage conservation, and that this is a national security issue as well as an environmental issue. This is important irregardless whether anthropogenic global warming is real or imagined, as it is critical that we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and develop sustainable alternatives.
HT: Geology.com News
Grace and Peace
2 thoughts on “Carbon tax or cap-and-trade?”
“irregardless” isn’t a word. But you taught science…not english. ;-)
Question: You have rightly claimed that conservation is a national security issue, when do economic concerns become national security issues?
You are right. I should have noticed the little red squiggle under “irregardless.”
I agree that economic concerns are national security issues as well, and that it is difficult to know the balance. The problem is that economic concerns seem to automatically outweigh environmental concerns, regardless of whether the economy is strong or weak.