I have advocated an entirely different approach than cap and tax, which would be worldwide in application and which emphasizes technology as a way of reducing total emissions.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I think we can lower our emissions. I think the world will be better off if we did that, and we can do it without cap and trade.
Some solutions are relatively simple and would provide economic benefits: implementing measures to conserve energy, putting a price on carbon through taxes and cap-and-trade and shifting from fossil fuels to clean and renewable energy sources.
Putting a tax on carbon could be an effective approach for curbing global warming pollution.
The cap-and-trade plan is more market driven than anything else. If you want to discourage carbon use, you have to make it more expensive, but what is crucial is that this be a worldwide program that includes China and India.
If the goal is to lower emissions, that's disconnected to most people. If the goal is to save taxpayers' money, now the public has some interest.
Many scientists and economists also say putting a price on carbon through carbon taxes and/or cap-and-trade is necessary.
For the U.S., I think we should have a carbon tax, for environmental reasons.
If you had a carbon tax, you'd have less cars and more bicycles, more people getting around on foot and by public transport.
The struggle against poverty in the world and the challenge of cutting wealthy country emissions all has a single, very simple solution... Here it is: Put a price on carbon.
Why not put a tax on carbon emissions. It would raise a lot of money, it would reduce the environmental damages in the future, it would solve so many problems, and it would be a much more constructive thing to do than to think about raising the income tax.