Pricing Carbon
How Trump Inspired America’s Carbon Markets
show comments
  • Josephbleau

    Message, cap and trade is great, and a failure.

  • Andrew Allison

    Where to begin? The inanity of celebrating increased interest in cap-and-trade, the utter failure of which has frequently been the subject of TAI posts? The fact that it’s not just the displacement of coal by natural gas that’s made the US a world leader in reducing GHG emissions? Or just more of the usual “Trump screwed up again” from the kiddy-winks? If TAI could get over its Trump derangement, it might have written about how stupid the regional emulation of failed policies is.

  • Fat_Man

    Good it means more reasons for businesses to move to Red States.

    • Dale Fayda

      Exactly. If the virtue-signaling Blue states want to tax themselves into inanition, let them at it.

  • Boritz

    Jughead bested Reggie more often than not.

  • Ulysses4033

    All of this beggars the fact that these efforts will, using the IPPC’s own fictional calculations, reduce the global temperature in fifty years by a fraction of a degree. This is still mostly leftist virtue signaling disguising its endless lust for the power to remake human nature.

    • Jim__L

      Now now, there are real calculations that show that cutting the CO2 output of humanity significantly, (say, in half) will in fact reduce the greenhouse effect, and thus global energy balance, by the equivalent of a fraction of a degree.

      There are also real calculations that show that doubling, tripling, or quadrupling humanity’s CO2 output will increase global energy balance by a fraction of a degree.

      The problem comes when the IPCC uses one set of numbers for CO2 reductions (“Oh no! Even a huge change won’t help!”), and a different set of numbers (“Oh no! Even a tiny change will be catastrophic!”) for CO2 increases. It’s intellectual dishonesty, helped along by attempting to model chaos (and make no mistake – climate, being a system of non-differential equations, is chaotic) using computers, which are by definition incapable of modeling chaos.

  • Isaiah6020

    I’m with Fat_Man on this one. This will just create more incentive for industry to move to Red States. Don’t think it will impact knowledge industry much since it doesn’t produce carbon nearly as much. Ultimately, I think these regional schemes will fail for the same reason OPEC failed. Members will cheat. Everyone wants to be the guy who brings back JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!! IT really sells in re-election campaigns.

    • Fat_Man

      “knowledge industry much since it doesn’t produce carbon nearly as much”

      Depends on what you mean by knowledge industry. The server farms that power infotech are energy hogs. “Carbon” taxes will force them to locate in Red states. I want to be the state that can posses those puppies. If your energy is cheap enough you can impose real estate and personal property taxes on them until the owners scream.

      • Isaiah6020

        Absolutely true. Great point. Not to mention more exoteric uses for these server farms, like mining bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.