mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Market Failure
California’s Cap-and-Trade Goes Unpaid
Features Icon
show comments
  • Jim__L

    The “Goldilocks” price is the price at which the cost of an emitter moving its operations matches the cost of its buying the permits.

    If the (amortized) cost of moving operations is cheap, emitters will simply move. Add that to the business case for moving in the first place — California’s regulatory environment makes it an awful place to do anything except software — and you have yet more of that “great sucking sound” that Perot talked about.

    Honestly, I suspect that Software’s interaction with the rest of the state’s economy makes it similar to Dutch Disease / the Resource Curse.

    • LarryD

      The assumption is that there is a price point that will coerce emitters to reduce emissions without simply making them move. Or putting them at such a disadvantage that a foreign competitor simply replaces them, a possibility most overlook when thinking about this subject.

      • Jim__L

        No, the Sierra Club has noticed this, and it’s why they want to take over the world.

        Or at least, dictate how the world regulates what it does for a living. I’m not sure what the difference is.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “Global Warming” is BS (over 500″ of snow in the Sierras). This is a Government Monopoly Created Market. Who would have thought bureaucrats couldn’t make that work? How about anyone that’s not a Leftist jackass?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service