A Question For Megan McArdle!


610 pollution on Y river.png

Concerning the history of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, Megan writes:

Now, everyone on the left was united in favoring auctions over giveaways. Auctions also had a fair amount of support on the right, mostly from people who hate corporate welfare even if they also oppose cap-and-trade. ...[B]ut the fact is that at the end of the day, you couldn't do this perfectly obvious thing that has surprisingly broad support among the policy elites of both parties. Instead, the bill was passed in a form that makes it more expensive, and almost totally ineffective.

I agree with Megan that auctions were a perfectly obvious thing to do. Still, I have a question for her: What's the connection between the the fact that the permits are being given away and the fact that the bill is now "almost totally ineffective"? I'm not sure I see a connection between these things.

A little plagiarism from last week: Waxman-Markey has warts, and in many ways a carbon tax would be simpler and fairer than a cap and trade system. Nonetheless, it seems to me that C&T does have one feature that is a nice bulwark against the harms of lobbying: It puts a strict cap on emissions. This means that industry lobbyists can affect how permits are distributed -- who gets them and when -- but changing the permit distribution process cannot raise the overall level of emissions that will occur.

I still think the distribution of permits is important. By giving some portion of the permits away, the government might be rewarding one industry over another, or rewarding firms that currently occupy a market over firms that might want to enter it in the future. That is unfair. But those concerns about fairness can and should be separated from concerns about the environmental effectiveness of the bill. Or do you disagree, Megan?

Nota Bene: Two additional thoughts. First, it's possible that the offset program in the bill will raise the overall level of emissions, if it is subject to lax oversight. Second, it's possible that the C&T giveaways will raise the number and amount of transaction costs in the carbon market, per this helpful comment from last week. Photo: Pollution along the Yangtze River, China. I continue to find Wikimedia's collection of air pollution photographs oddly striking.


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.

The Case for Napping at Work

Most Americans don't get enough sleep. More and more employers are trying to help address that.

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

The Case for Napping at Work

Most Americans don't get enough sleep. More and more employers are trying to help address that.

Video

A Four-Dimensional Tour of Boston

In this groundbreaking video, time moves at multiple speeds within a single frame.

Video

Who Made Pop Music So Repetitive? You Did.

If pop music is too homogenous, that's because listeners want it that way.

Video

Playing An Actual Keyboard Cat

A music video transforms food, pets, and objects into extraordinary instruments.

Video

Stunning GoPro Footage of a Wildfire

In the field with America’s elite Native American firefighting crew

Video

The Man Who Built a Forest Larger Than Central Park

Since 1979, he has planted more than 1,300 acres of trees.

More in Politics

Just In