The basic premise in the move to tax or cap carbon emissions is the proposition of making dirty energy expensive. This is reactionary, of course. It is also not sustainable in the long run because it is punitive in nature. Anything punitive will only fall under the human ability to circumvent the rule – especially by incorrigible polluters and their political patrons. NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen calls the ‘minor tweak to business-as-usual’ as being insignificant in the effort to reduce US carbon emissions.

Some economists and environmentalists believe ‘that cap-and-trade is a cumbersome and economically inefficient means of establishing a carbon price, one that is particularly vulnerable to manipulation by polluters and politicians.’

The debate on cap vs. tax has been going on for several years and yet nothing crystal clear has emerged from under all the smokescreen. It is because the campaign is hugely political, even geopolitical. Fact is, willful reduction of carbon emissions takes a tremendous political will. Politicians are not readily willing to put a high price on carbon, especially that fossil fuel is more conveniently available.

What is more positive and behavior-changing is making clean energy cheap – and encouraging public investment in the concept. However, at the rate carbon emitters take advantage of the freedom to emit, some form of punitive measure is needed to be put in place. Not everyone would be readily willing to change attitude right away. Carbon cap-and-trade is a painfully concrete step for most because it requires actual emission reductions.

Image

Via environment360