The Perfect, The Good, The Planet

[cal04]

By PAUL KRUGMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1

In a way, it was easy to take stands during the Bush years: the Bushies and their allies in Congress were so determined to move the nation in the wrong direction that one could, with a clear conscience, oppose all the administration’s initiatives.

Now, however, a somewhat uneasy coalition of progressives and centrists rules Washington, and staking out a position has become much trickier. Policy tends to move things in a desirable direction, yet to fall short of what you’d hoped to see. And the question becomes how many compromises, how much watering down, one is willing to accept.

There will be a lot of soul-searching later this year for advocates of health care reform. (For me the make-or-break issue is whether the legislation includes a public plan.) But right now it’s the environmental community that has to decide how much it’s willing to bend.

If we’re going to get real action on climate change any time soon, it will be via some version of legislation proposed by Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey. Their bill would limit greenhouse gases by requiring polluters to receive or buy emission permits, with the number of available permits — the “cap” in “cap and trade” — gradually falling over time.

It goes without saying that the usual suspects on the right have denounced Waxman-Markey: global warming isn’t real, emission limits will destroy the economy, yada yada. But the bill also faces opposition from some environmentalists, who are balking at the compromises the sponsors made to gain political support.

So is Waxman-Markey — whose language was released last week — good enough?

Well, Al Gore has praised the bill, and plans to organize a grass-roots campaign on its behalf. A number of environmental organizations, ranging from the League of Conservation Voters to the Environmental Defense Fund, have also come out in strong support.

[DatManFromNawlins]

1. Please explain to me...

... why cap and trade is a more desirable solution than a direct carbon tax on emissions. I have yet to see a plausible theory on why we should allow a middle man in the trading of carbon credits, or why carbon credits even need to exist in the first place.

[Oregone]

2. Taxing may not curb consumption (or emissions) and...

added production costs will just be passed onto the consumer.

Caping, by definition, limits the emissions. What do you have to do in crisis?

Carbon tax costs each family in my province an estimated $300+ a year I think. I'm not sure it has any evidence yet of limiting emissions.