Is Cap and Trade a 'Special Interests' Giveaway?


250 monopoly-man.jpg

My colleague Clive Crook thinks so -- he calls the new bill a "travesty" and a "playground for special interests" in his new FT column -- and so do many of the commenters on this blog. But while my instinct is always to be a shameless comment demagogue, and while I agree with Clive that there are a lot of warts on the new American Clean Energy and Security Act, I do think it's worth making one point about the bill's 'corpoate giveaways.'

I've written elsewhere that in an ideal world we'd want to regulate emissions with a carbon tax. I still believe this: A carbon tax would be simpler and fairer and (potentially) easier to scale globally. But it seems to me that cap and trade does have one feature that is nice bulwark against the harms of lobbying: It puts a strict cap on emissions. This means that lobbyists can affect how permits are distributed -- who gets them and when -- but not the overall level of emissions that will occur. (I don't think this would be true of a carbon tax cluttered by the concerns of special interests: A tax exemption here or there will reduce the tax's effectiveness in limiting emissions.)

Sure, the distribution of permits is still very important. When the government gives permits to select recipients, it is rewarding one industry over another, and favoring "incumbent" companies over those that might enter the market in the future. I think that is unfair. But those concerns about fairness are entirely separate from concerns about the environmental effectiveness of the bill. A cap and trade bill that gives all the permits to Donald Trump will be just as effective in reducing emissions as a bill that auctions off all of the permits and uses the revenue to fund an across the board payroll tax cut.

I thought this point was expressed very eloquently and at greater length last month by Harvard's Robert Stavins. So here's a question: has anything been added to the bill since then that would reduce its effectiveness?


I was looking for a stereotypical picture of sinister corporate interests, but the best I could come up with was the darn monopoly man.

Presented by

Conor Clarke is the editor, with Michael Kinsley, of Creative Capitalism. He was previously a fellow at The Atlantic and an editor at The Guardian. More

Conor Clarke is the editor, with Michael Kinsley, of Creative Capitalism, an economics blog that was recently published in book form by Simon and Schuster. He was previously a fellow at The Atlantic and an editor at The Guardian. He is also on Twitter.

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well. Bestselling author Mark Bittman teaches James Hamblin the recipe that everyone is Googling.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.

Video

Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.

Video

The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.

Video

Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.

Video

Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses

Video

Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Politics

Just In