Many people say cap and trade is better. I believe this is not true because cap and trade "sets a maximum level of pollution, a cap, and distributes emission permits among firms that produce emissions. Companies must have a permit to cover each unit of pollution they produce, and they can obtain these permits either through an initial allocation or auction, or through trading with other firms."
The negatives to cap and trade are that it provides uncertainty about the cost of achieving reductions.
Attached is what Carbon tax and Cap And Trade graph would look like:
Here is the article: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/31/carbon-tax-cap-and-trade
I don't agree with with the fact that carbon taxes will create an incentive to reduce pollution. If some wealthy producers are able to pay the tax they will continue to pollute as much as they do now. On the other hand, cap and trade will only let a company emit so much pollution as the government feels is proper for our environment. Plus, companies have to buy a license to pollute in the first place.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think that carbon tax is not the solution this problem. Wealthy consumers will pay in order to do what they want. They will continue to pollute as much as they used to no matter how high the tax is. They will somehow find the money in order to pay for it. Cap and trade limits the amount of pollution so this will decrease the amount of carbon emission. The company's having to buy the right to pollute, they will have to rethink how to use it the most efficient. Cap and trade is the better of the two options to reduce carbon emissions.