This is jumping back in time a bit, but I do want to respond at greater length to this post from Rob Harrison of Conservatives 4 Palin and this post from Stephen Spruiell of the National Review. They are unhappy because I wrote, contra Sarah Palin's op-ed, "I don't think cap and trade has many supporters who think it's the best way to become 'less dependent on foreign energy sources.'"
Spruiell says this is "ignorant" because prominent supporters of the Waxman-Markey bill have said the bill will help reduce dependence on foreign oil. But I stand by my claim entirely, and I invite Spruiell to reread my post a tad more carefully and tell me why it's mutually exclusive with the evidence he introduces. If Spruiell and Harrison want to, we can certainly do a tedious interpretive dance over the meaning of "know," "cap and trade," "many," and "best" (along with every other word in my original sentence), but that doesn't sound to me like time well spent. (Definitions of "time well spent" can, of course, vary.)
On the more general subject: I've written this many, many times before, but I don't think the right standard for judging a cap and trade bill should be jobs created or national economic gains in the near term. Some Democrats suggest that a cap and trade bill will do these things (create "green jobs" and so forth) but they aren't telling the truth. Or at least I doubt they mean what they say. The primary purpose of the bill -- which is perfectly obvious and widely known and not at all worth debating -- is to reduce the level and rate of carbon emissions in the country, in the hopes of reducing the level and rate of emissions around the world.