As Brian Merchant at Treehugger explains, cap and trade isn't dead, despite reports in the media: I consider the New York Times to be the paper...
As Brian Merchant at Treehugger explains, cap and trade isn't dead, despite reports in the media:
I consider the New York Times to be the paper of record in the United States, as many people do. But its coverage of climate issues in particular has been frustrating lately. For evidence, look no further than this recent piece: Tracing the Demise of Cap and Trade, which purports to explain how what was just a year ago the Democrat's "energy policy of choice", is now dead. But the story leaves out one little detail: it's not. ...Yes, the economy-wide mechanism designed to price carbon across the board, like the one included as the centerpiece of the climate bill that passed the House of Reps last summer, seems increasingly unlikely to be a part of the new Senate bill. But according to details that have leaked out about that very bill (Kerry-Graham-Lieberman) reveal that it's simply made up of smaller, industry-specific cap and trade systems. One that requires utilities to pay for carbon pollution permits from the get go, and one that will likely target the manufacturing sector and be phased in later.I think what's happened here is that, while the fundamental idea of a market-driven pollution permit system is still popular, no one really likes the term "cap and trade." The Times just mistook the death of the label for the death of the policy it describes.Image: IMG_0880, a Creative Commons Attribution (2.0) image from 30816202@N02's photostream