Two articles in the latest Bloomberg Business Week push the argument in favor of federal cap-and-trade legislation.
In the first, Eric Pooley sells the story that cap-and-trade provisions wouldn?t necessitate much change in people?s lives:
[K]ey Democratic senators had no appetite for a bill that might cause a modest, short-term increase in electricity prices?potentially endangering some 20th century manufacturing jobs?even if it helps create many more 21st century jobs by making clean energy competitive with coal.
Later in this issue, Jim Snyder and Kim Chipman lament that carbon limits are not driving people toward less-efficient energy sources:
Encouraged by the White House, clean-energy advocates like [biofuels company CEO Jack] Oswald had expected that Congress would also pass a bill putting a limit on carbon and authorizing the trading of emission permits. The trading system would have the effect of generating higher prices for carbon, making clean-energy companies more competitive, and producing “green-collar” jobs, according to its backers.
What?s wrong with these arguments? I?ll focus on just two. First, there?s the myth that cap and trade would lead to little sacrifice. Second, there?s the myth that Americans benefit when government artificially raises prices on energy sources.
