Cap-and-Trade Does More Harm than Good

Bill offers incentives for businesses that pollute. Carbon fees or taxation would be better for the economy and the Earth

Unfortunately, despite the best intentions of its proponents, the bill known as Waxman-Markey would disable our ability to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for at least a decade, hugely increasing the risk of irreversible climate calamity. Full Story »

Posted by Dwight Rousu

See All Reviews »

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Review

Member_photo_thumb
4.6
by Dwight Rousu - Jul. 1, 2009

The condemnation of cap and trade from people who are experienced with it have studied it is well presented.

Carbon taxes are straight forward and work; they should be imposed by the states if the congress is too much owned by big coal and oil companies.

Waxman-Markey proponents have cited the success of the Environmental Protection Agency’s acid-rain cap-and-trade program (with no offsets). But they ignore huge differences between the acid-rain and climate-change challenges.

Many observers across the political spectrum agree that carbon fees or taxes, with rebates to consumers, would be a more enforceable and effective alternative.

(15 answers)

Dwight's Rating

Overall
4.6

Very good
from 15 answers
Quality
4.8
Information
4.0
Insight
5.0
Style
5.0
Context
5.0
Expertise
5.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
5.0
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
5.0
Credibility
3.0
More How our ratings work »