One of the most pressing issues facing the candidates is global warming or climate change, whichever you prefer. I want to talk about ways to stop or at least slow down the effects of said issue, at least from the Dem perspective. I have listened to the candidates and their positions on helping the planet. So far I am not too impressed with many of their views. To me they are given too much time for the elimination of the harmful emissions. IMO, the popular cap and trade that is being proposed by most candidates will not do the trick.
The leading candidates have the same plan, only with slightly different end goals. That is a cap and trade system. That is efforts to curtail emissions through fuel economy standards, biofuel mandates, or appliance standards may be well-meaning, but in my opinion, this is not the answer. Clinton wants to cut oil consumption in half by 2025; Obama wants to a two-thirds reduction by 2050 and then there is Edawrds who wants an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050. All these are cap and trade approaches.
The program that I feel would be better in the control of the situation is an emissions tax. But it is a TAX! Yes it is and taxation seems to be an ugly word these days, but if taxation discourages consumption; for example, taxing carbon emissions discourages carbon consumption, why would this be a bad idea? The less carbon emissions released into the atmosphere the better and more healthy the planet will be.
There are five reasons why the emissions fee or carbon tax is better than the popular cap and trade. These are the reasons put foward by carbontax.org
* Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will do little to mitigate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.
* Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.
* Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.
* Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.
* Carbon tax revenues can be rebated to the public through dividends or tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.
The costs passed on to each consumer might be noticeable, but need not excessive. An emission fee of $15/ton or a permit price of $15/ton would increase gasoline prices about 15 cents per gallon and residential electricity prices about ¾ of a cent per kilowatt-hour, according to Joe Aldy of the Progressive Policy Institute.
The proposals of the “Big 3” take too long to achieve the goal of cutting emissions and saving the planet for future generations. Personally, since we all are contributors to the problem then we all should be part of the solution and the best solution is the emissions fee.
IMO, a much better idea than the “cap and trade” proposals being offered by the two candidates.