What is Cap & Trade?
An example with cookies.
Congressman Noah Tall notices that his children are getting fat and doing badly in school because they're eating too many cookies. Oh, no! What should he do?
He takes it to congress and a law is passed that no company can make more than 150 cookies a month.
Company A only makes 20 cookies a month, so this is not a problem.
However, Company B makes 200 cookies a month, so it must cut down on its production.
Or must it?
The government in its wisdom has put into place a program known as "Cap & Trade." Through this program, a Cookie Equalization Agency is started.
The Cookie Equalization Company helps Agency A sell 50 of its "cookies" (or cookie rights) to Company B.
So everybody's happy, right?
But there's a big problem (more than one, in fact).
1. Q. Why was the government limiting cookie production in the first place? What was the purpose?
A. To reduce cookie production.
Did this happen? No. Everybody is doing exactly as they were doing before; company A is still making 20 cookies and company B is still making 200 cookies. The production is the same.
2. Q. So who is benefiting from this?
A. The Cookie Equalization Agency
Q. What product are they selling?
A. Company B's nonexistent cookies.
Is this worth it? Is Cap & Trade a legitimate policy? You decide.
Please set aside your beliefs on global warming/climate change. I believe that Cap and Trade is a separate issue. We can debate the cause, the existence, etc. of climate change somewhere else.
In fact, I would like you to approach the issue of Cap and Trade as if you do believe that CO2 emissions are causing significant and dangerous climate change (whether you really do or not.)
Will this policy help? And do you believe that helping is the motive of those proposing the plan?
An example with cookies.
Congressman Noah Tall notices that his children are getting fat and doing badly in school because they're eating too many cookies. Oh, no! What should he do?
He takes it to congress and a law is passed that no company can make more than 150 cookies a month.
Company A only makes 20 cookies a month, so this is not a problem.
However, Company B makes 200 cookies a month, so it must cut down on its production.
Or must it?
The government in its wisdom has put into place a program known as "Cap & Trade." Through this program, a Cookie Equalization Agency is started.
The Cookie Equalization Company helps Agency A sell 50 of its "cookies" (or cookie rights) to Company B.
So everybody's happy, right?
But there's a big problem (more than one, in fact).
1. Q. Why was the government limiting cookie production in the first place? What was the purpose?
A. To reduce cookie production.
Did this happen? No. Everybody is doing exactly as they were doing before; company A is still making 20 cookies and company B is still making 200 cookies. The production is the same.
2. Q. So who is benefiting from this?
A. The Cookie Equalization Agency
Q. What product are they selling?
A. Company B's nonexistent cookies.
Is this worth it? Is Cap & Trade a legitimate policy? You decide.
Please set aside your beliefs on global warming/climate change. I believe that Cap and Trade is a separate issue. We can debate the cause, the existence, etc. of climate change somewhere else.
In fact, I would like you to approach the issue of Cap and Trade as if you do believe that CO2 emissions are causing significant and dangerous climate change (whether you really do or not.)
Will this policy help? And do you believe that helping is the motive of those proposing the plan?
RSS Feed