Some economists believe a simple tax on greenhouse gas emissions makes more sense than the elaborate cap-and-trade regime for carbon dioxide envisioned by Evolution and other players in the nascent market. After all, a global market would be hard to police, and even in the United States authority might be spread among several agencies, from the EPA to the SEC. And the EPA is moving forward with regulations that may simply mandate a cut in greenhouse gas emissions. "There's a fair chance that if EPA moves forward, it will be command and control," said Josh Margolis, CEO of environmental brokerage CantorCO2e. "I got into this business in the mid-1980s and there was no cap-and-trade program; it was a program that focused on people who could create reductions and needed them to expand or build new facilities."

But trading allows the market to work its efficient magic on the reduction of air pollution, from Hochschild's and Evolution's perspectives—and that remains the national negotiating position of the United States: Companies that can make reductions do so because they have a financial incentive. Companies that cannot afford to do so can buy compliance for a reasonable price. In their minds, a deal is good for their finances and the environment.

As the old Evolution slogan went: "Saving the planet, one trade at a time."

This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.

7 Comments

1. 1. hotblack 01:35 PM 9/9/10

   Maybe we can get a few republicans to tell us what they already think.
   
   ...wait for it...
   
   ...wait for iiiiiiit...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Quinn the Eskimo 01:23 AM 9/10/10

   If algore is hiring the Boy Scouts to plant 21,000 trees to balance his carbon print from his palace in Tenn. and his jets. . . Who's verifying they're actually planting anything?
   
   Maybe we should just . . . if you earn, give it to Washington. They know better than all of us combined! They do! Just ask 'em.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. gesimsek 12:24 PM 9/10/10

   People who think that the commercialization of the information was a good idea should look at the article in this magazine on ghostwriting in drug industry. If I do not know what you think unless I pay I will not be able to understand you unless I am rich in which case I do not need to know what you say.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. delmaracer 05:46 PM 9/10/10

   Trading Carbon is a CON JOB. It does nothing to reduce the carbon being produced. It only moves it around the planet. So, why aren't the environmentalist demonstrating against the CON JOB?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Ruler4You 10:09 AM 9/11/10

   What I can't believe is that "scientists" haven't exposed this con for what it is. And I suspect that is because of the vast sums of money at stake.
   "Science" is just one more 'opinion' these days, frequently just as opinionated and free of science fact as any lay person opinion. And for likely the usual reasons, as we have seen from the CRU debacle.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. eco-steve 06:19 PM 9/13/10

   Of course carbon trading is wide open to fraud and should be abandoned in favour of greenhouse gas tax. Climate change occurs because energy prices are held artificially by force below realistic levels that would allow atmospheric hygiene.
   The solution exists and can be seen on Wikipedia under 'Biomass Pyrolysis', biomass including fossil hydrocarbons. All that is required is a proper carbon tax to double CO2 prices.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. Erostisi 08:16 PM 9/13/10

   Can we really say that carbon trading is the wrong way to go? Of course, right now it isn't working because both companies and governments are scamming people. But once regulated, like any other business, it will fall in line and become a legitimate enterprise. Of course, it will probably take years for the government to pass the necessary legislation to make it possible, but it is possible in the foreseeable future.
   
   And from my point of view, cap and trade can reduce carbon emissions. If governments lower the cap every few years, companies would steadily decrease their emissions or be slapped with a heavy fine. Just look at traffic violations; charging $150+ for a ticket seems to encourage people not to speed.
   
   I'm not saying that we should only have a carbon trading system; in fact, I believe we should have both a carbon trading system and a greenhouse gas tax. If companies are forced to pay for their emissions, they will become more responsible about how much they output and reduce it, because money is always a major motivator.
   
   To sum it up, carbon trading isn't as useless as it seems. It can be a major force in reducing emissions when regulated properly. We just need to give it more time.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this