Tuesday, May 13, 2008

It is more than the Fine Print

Where do We sign up for total opposition of Cap-n-Trade altogether? I favor Carbon Taxation, rather than Cap-n-Trade. I personally have objection to John Whitehead’s objection to the 100% auction, as there actually exists no Incentive to injecting a pluralism into Profits; Companies will neither enter or exit such industry, based solely on the amount of taxation they face, or even alter their Investment schedules. Carbon Credit Giveaways simply give these Companies ability to further profit from a basic Cost to Consumers.

Elemental to my belief in the superiority of Carbon Taxation over Cap-n-Trade is the sincere fact that it throws the entire Cost upon the Consumer, rather than a hidden total shift of the entire Cost of Tax unto the Consumer in Cap-n-Trade plus the Profits of Companies from the Sale of excess Carbon Credits. A 100% auction of Carbon Credits reduces the Management fees that Companies will extort from the Consumer, but will leave a residual Management demand for about 8% Profit on the total Cost of the Credits. Outright Carbon Taxation will provide the most Incentive to Consumers to cut their Energy usage, while presenting the actual least Cost.

A primary fault with the entire Discussion comes in the belief that We want Corporate participation in the basic program of Carbon taxation in whatever form. Truth states that We want an exclusion of Corporate interaction to the same degree as the Consumer holds. What is important in economic policy is the equality of impact on all Players, this means the elimination of Gaming the policy; only with this elimination can economic policy be sure of the Participant reactions, a determination necessary to meet the Taxation requirements and the foundation impact desired. I would not sign the Economists Statement, but my rationale comes from the exact opposite direction as John’s resistance. lgl

No comments: