Curbing carbon emissions might not cost as much as previously thought.I can afford $150 a year. I'd even pay $450 a year if my extra $300 would pay for those who can't afford $150 a year. As Tim Haab points out, the impact of a carbon tax or cap and trade will be focused on those sectors of the economy responsible for releasing a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as it should be. When I see how small the costs are, any doubt I have about moving forward evaporates.
The Environmental Protection Agency presented its analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill on Tuesday and said the contentious plan would cost households less than $150 a year. (source Environmental Capital, Wall Street Journal)
Let's do it.1
I should note that Roger Pielke, Jr. has looked into the numbers and thinks there are some things missing. My take? Any projection has embedded assumptions. I expect the EPA's analysis to be challenged. But I also suspect (based on trust in the professionalism of EPA staffers, not expertise in the field) that the assumptions EPA staffers made in their analysis are reasonable. So I still say,
Let's go for it.
1I remain agnostic on whether "it" should be a straightforward tax or cap and trade and on how permits should be issued under cap and trade. I'll let the experts (and politicians) argue about that.
Let's go for it.
1I remain agnostic on whether "it" should be a straightforward tax or cap and trade and on how permits should be issued under cap and trade. I'll let the experts (and politicians) argue about that.
Leave a comment