If the big banks are pushing for cap-and-trade carbon trading schemes ought we not to be a bit skeptical? Aren't they the ones who have led us down a primrose path with "subpime" and other messes? Big banks are pushing cap-and-trade, reports the NY Times. And yet, many big environmental groups support cap-and-trade legislation over carbon taxes. Why?
I'm still on the carbon tax bandwagon. But what do I know, relative to these economists who, as members of the Union of Concerned Scientists are on record in favor of cap-and-trade systems. Questions linger: Do economists like Joseph Stiglitz favor cap-and–trade over carbon taxes, or do they endorse cap-and-trade as a second-best resolution to the carbon problem relative to extant institutional arrangements? Of course we all know—or should—that it is difficult to know, at least in the Theory of the Second Best what really constitute a "second best". Then again, said "theory" doesn't apply here. What does? To the NY Times:
Banks Urging U.S. to Adopt the Trading of Emissions, JAMES KANTER, Sept. 26: PARIS, Sept. 25 — A group representing some of the world’s leading banks will urge the United States and other industrial nations this week to move quickly to introduce a lightly regulated system for trading carbon emissions permits.…See also: World Betting the Farm on Carbon Trading?, Youth Climate Movement,Sept 4