The bill’s simplicity and political attractiveness may be its strongest points. And in the current economic and political climates, I don’t know if we should expect much better.

Cap and trades worked for SOx and NOx, in part, because we could identify the point-sources. CO2, on the other hand, has many more sources. And the most elusive of those sources is automobiles. Levying a tax on the producer makes sure that the fossil fuel is covered by a paid permit, regardless of where it ends up or who uses it.

“it incentivizes investment in renewable energy by the companies that make greenhouse gas emissions by making fossil energy. ”

The companies affected are the coal and oil companies that emit over 25,000 tons a year, there’s only 4,000 – 8,000 affected.

But – if it were directed into a special “solar panel account” for that “family-of-four”, then it would be great. (Or wind turbine, or geothermal, or insulation improvement account etc)

That use of cap and trade (creating the funding to put in renewables and efficiency to replace old energy) is essentially what the current cap and trade bill does; it incentivizes investment in renewable energy by the companies that make greenhouse gas emissions by making all our crap.

I think that is a more efficient use of the funds. It has worked for SOx and NOx to reduce acid rain. But nobody understands it.

Personally, I’d prefer a straight carbon tax. I don’t mind the cost being passed on to the consumer. Nothing’s free in this world, but our society in general doesn’t want to pay for anything. That being said I think this method of passing the revenues back on to tax payers is a good way to appease those concerns.