Today’s post is at Pajama’s Media: The Inevitable Failure (by Design) of Cap and Trade.
The editors David Steinberg and Aaron Hanscom generously supplied the title and tag-line, which is, “Even if the global warming malarkey were true, cap and trade would actually cause the problem it seeks to remedy.”
Incidentally, I love the word “malarkey.”
My thesis is that Cap & Trade & Tax & Spend, which is not dead, will cause more problems than it solves. Or it will cause just as many problems as it solves. In any case, it will not cause fewer.
Well put. Just one question: by “by design” do you mean it is intended to fail or do mean it is a flawed design?
Jerry,
Flawed design. I dearly hope it’s no by intention.
I would have commented over at PJ but they seem to have a cap on profanity and no way to trade. I presume the same cap & (no) trade policy exists here as well so I will refrain from saying what’s on my mind. Bummer.
What I thought. But I’m just cynical enough to wonder. Maybe not so much as designed to fail, but pitched with absolutely no expectation of success, and/or with complete confidence that the problem to be fixed doesn’t really exist.
Does that make me a bad person?
If rational governments thought that it was a really serious problem, then there would be a real plan to phase out CO2 emissions in the shortest time possible, a real plan to replace existing technologies with tested, lowest cost alternatives and proper provision for those businesses and investors directly disadvantaged and proper help for the poor and helpless.
Leaving it all to the maket is a rescipe to replicate the disasterous Russian transition from Communism, but on a much broader world wide scale.
(I have probably upset William Briggs, but I am an unabashed, old fashioned, mixed economy man – there is a vital role for both government and free enterprise in a democracy.)
I should have said – if AWG is real we have a real emergence, at least aking to a world war. We would need extraudinary government action.
I dont’ see the emergency or the government reaction – just hype, control and tax.
Nah, AusieDan, it takes a lot more than that to upset me. And anyway, I don’t say there is no role for government, just that ours is currently too large.
All carbon reduction strategies work by (unnecessarily) increasing price. There is no viable low cost, green alternative. Higher energy costs will not create jobs – liberal assertions notwithstanding. Absent global cooperation – and it certainly seems absent- nothing we (Americans) do will be enough to impact future temperatures. The people who will suffer most are the poor in developing nations to whom we are bringing climate justice.
Government funded research birthed this nonsense; only fair that the solution breed more government to fund more research.
So, what’s your beef?
“(artificially) increasing price” is more accurate.
Pajama’s {sic} why the apostrophe?
Email me artcile {sic} suggestions My artciles have been rejected by everyone else – maybe I have found a home.
Picky, I know, but these things jump out at me.
Thank you for good ideas, well-presented, and timely links.
Sometimes a single pajama — not to mention a married one — can be very possessive.
John R T,
What apostrophe?
admirable piece of writing here at https://www.wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2040 . Thiking to translating your copy into Italian for our readers. Will let you know after I talk to our writers. many thanks.