Cap and trade works. We achieve a set environmental benefit, and the price is set by the market. It's ostensibly free-market, it's effective, it's implementable, and it's cheap to administer. I'm glad to see public support, though I imagine that a fox-news poll would look quite different.
I believe that a cap and trade program will save us from Harden's theory of the "Tragedy of the commons." The atmosphere is a free natural resource that is available to the public and any unregulated rule over it will lead to the "tragedy" or the destruction of the atmosphere/commons.
Does cap and trade seem a little like selling indulgences? The people who can pay can still pollute. Also, what about the companies that already are pretty green. I'm not very clear on how it will be implemented either. Will there be private auditors to establish what each company's allotment is and if they are reaching it?
I believe it's a great step to reducing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It does have to deal with the tragedy of the commons but in a sense we haven't really outweighed the negative economic outcomes. I am in favor because it provides companies incentives to act in the benefit of the entire group.
I wonder how much the general public knows about cap and trade because it addresses a tragedy of the commons issue. Is cap and trade really a stable market base?
Cap and Trade seems like one of the best options because it is the most economically efficient way of reducing emissions. We all know the power of the dollar so this seems like they way to go about things. Props to the public for being in favor!
7 comments:
Cap and trade works. We achieve a set environmental benefit, and the price is set by the market. It's ostensibly free-market, it's effective, it's implementable, and it's cheap to administer. I'm glad to see public support, though I imagine that a fox-news poll would look quite different.
Im glad there are so many comments on your link! Cap and Trade is great.
I believe that a cap and trade program will save us from Harden's theory of the "Tragedy of the commons." The atmosphere is a free natural resource that is available to the public and any unregulated rule over it will lead to the "tragedy" or the destruction of the atmosphere/commons.
Does cap and trade seem a little like selling indulgences? The people who can pay can still pollute. Also, what about the companies that already are pretty green. I'm not very clear on how it will be implemented either. Will there be private auditors to establish what each company's allotment is and if they are reaching it?
I believe it's a great step to reducing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It does have to deal with the tragedy of the commons but in a sense we haven't really outweighed the negative economic outcomes. I am in favor because it provides companies incentives to act in the benefit of the entire group.
I wonder how much the general public knows about cap and trade because it addresses a tragedy of the commons issue. Is cap and trade really a stable market base?
Cap and Trade seems like one of the best options because it is the most economically efficient way of reducing emissions. We all know the power of the dollar so this seems like they way to go about things. Props to the public for being in favor!
Post a Comment