Cap and trade isn't going to work--and that's assuming it passes the Senate. Neither is a carbon tax a solution. Neither will save the economy; neither will save the world.
Cap and trade institutionalizes a notion of "punishing" pollution monetarily--by fines and otherwise. It meets our standards of justice more easily (and is certainly more enforceable) than flogging the CEO of an offending institution or putting board members in the stocks would do. But all too quickly, cap and trade will become, "pay per spew." If the costs of breaking emissions caps don't outweight the benefits (viz. the costs of overhauls, buying/trading for a higher cap, etc.), we're simply going to break them and pay the fine. Carbon taxes are just a simpler, more honest version of the same thinking.
"I can break, take or do whatever I want, so long as I have the money to pay for it," is a poor philosophy, encouraging calculation of risk rather than right, and ultimately contempt for the rule of law. That is not a philosophy I want ingrained any deeper into my culture, Rep. Waxman, thank you very much.
But the philosophy is all wrong here. We're trying to eliminate a thing--what will fill its place? Nature abhors a vacuum. What we ought to do is pour money and time into researching ways to create "clean" energy--not in order to cut back on using it, but to create a superabundance. Think of it like investing in computers in 1981. Let's make energy as cheap and as plentiful as hard drive space is now. Imagine the possibilities in a world where $33 per month could buy you unlimited energy.
I don't pretend to know what new sources of energy will look like, and I realize we'd need new business models to deal with abundant rather than scarce resources. I like the idea. There are plenty of individuals more enterprising than I who would find a way. And if the environment were to "get saved" in the process, so much the better. Forget making pollution prohibitively expensive, let's make clean energy hugely profitable.
Cap and trade institutionalizes a notion of "punishing" pollution monetarily--by fines and otherwise. It meets our standards of justice more easily (and is certainly more enforceable) than flogging the CEO of an offending institution or putting board members in the stocks would do. But all too quickly, cap and trade will become, "pay per spew." If the costs of breaking emissions caps don't outweight the benefits (viz. the costs of overhauls, buying/trading for a higher cap, etc.), we're simply going to break them and pay the fine. Carbon taxes are just a simpler, more honest version of the same thinking.
"I can break, take or do whatever I want, so long as I have the money to pay for it," is a poor philosophy, encouraging calculation of risk rather than right, and ultimately contempt for the rule of law. That is not a philosophy I want ingrained any deeper into my culture, Rep. Waxman, thank you very much.
But the philosophy is all wrong here. We're trying to eliminate a thing--what will fill its place? Nature abhors a vacuum. What we ought to do is pour money and time into researching ways to create "clean" energy--not in order to cut back on using it, but to create a superabundance. Think of it like investing in computers in 1981. Let's make energy as cheap and as plentiful as hard drive space is now. Imagine the possibilities in a world where $33 per month could buy you unlimited energy.
I don't pretend to know what new sources of energy will look like, and I realize we'd need new business models to deal with abundant rather than scarce resources. I like the idea. There are plenty of individuals more enterprising than I who would find a way. And if the environment were to "get saved" in the process, so much the better. Forget making pollution prohibitively expensive, let's make clean energy hugely profitable.
No comments:
Post a Comment