Do you agree that pricing carbon and reducing emissions makes good business sense?

Yes.

Though, strange to tell, jim has a point. The carbon price would need to be offset by reducing some other taxes, preferably taxes that directly affect the price of goods that need to compete internationally.

I think in addition to that a Green-Marxist-Revolutionary U.N. makes good sense because it will save money on separate armies and provide moral and political motivation for citizens to defend lands through U.N. Charter and stop genocide. In addition with the pricing and reduction rule and a Green-Marxist economy this will work. In addition places like that Yahoo car section should be closed down.

The reason is the IPCC report states reduction in emissions essential and the car has become a symbol

of death to many people for that reason and they look upon a car as bein obsolete. It would not matter what type of car just it's being on the road says museum piece to many people. That is what I think every time I see a column of cars at a traffic light.

If their sole intent is too move away from carbon based fuels, then taxing the carbon is an effective way to move away from it. I would hope that they would offset the burden of the tax by reducing taxes elsewhere; otherwise, they are just shooting themselves in the foot. Assuming they were the only ones taxing carbon, their goods would still have to compete with Chinese (for example) goods that could be produced without the carbon tax and would therefore be far cheaper. Unless the taxes are universal (worldwide), it may not be very practical IMO.

Note: This is from your link.

Besides receiving this initial allocation on a plant-by-plant basis, an operator may purchase EU allowances from others (installations, traders, the government.

What would you call it when a plant purchases allowances from the government and how is that different from a tax. The IRS could give me a breath allowance and make me pay for those breaths that I take beyond my allowance. You might not consider that a tax. You might prefer to think of it as a breath purchase allowance. In the end, it is a tax.

I will grant that it might not be a tax if the government was generous in their allocation to a particular company but that wouldn't be effective to reduce the CO2 emission either

Yes, I do, but I don't support a cap and trade system in USA and here is why.

We already pay EPA to keep our air clean, and free of harmful substances. Under the Unitary Executive power the EPA can simply order the closure of any coal fired plant that is not in compliance with current standards.

I just want EPA to do their jobs, instead of turning their jobs into a 20 year three-ring circus of rulemaking, processes, procedures, and red tape.

A plant is either in compliance or its not. If EPA has no ability whatsoever to make this determination, it should hire a contractor to make the determination. Keep a chain of custody on the instruments as they emerge from the calibration lab into the field. Make sure six witnesses read the instruments in each other's presence and sign an affidavit shortly thereafter, within 2 hours.

If the company disputes the closure in Federal Court, make sure it pays all court costs, all attorneys fees, and all fines and damages for its frivolous abuse of judicial process.

What we don't need in USA is more three ring circuses of "due process" run completely amuk to the point where process and procedure overcome all outcomes and all results, so we never never never get any problem actually solved and done with. We become like Iraq -- a talking shop.

What we do need is for Agencies in the Executive Branch to fully utilize their Unitary Executive Power to eliminate non-complying fixed point sources from operation. Make them gone.

Those expensive agencies must do their jobs. Take that job off the table -- so it's not part of America's problems anymore. Disappear the problem. That's what we pay you for. Not writing lawbooks, not conducting massive processes and procedures and court cases and rulemakings. Just do the job.

I feel exactly the same way about the military. If somebody needs killing, just go out and kill them, then come home safely. We pay you to solve the problem. Take if off the table. Make it not there. So we can get on to other things.

I feel the same way about the Fed and the SEC and the FDIC. Take your authority, use it to get the job done, or quit right now today, put your resignation on my desk. We pay you to solve problems. We don't want the problems in our face anymore. We don't want a carnival of compliance "issues" or a funhouse of regulatory rulemakings. We want the problem gone, and you to make it so.

I call this the executive approach.

Solve problems, don't play with them, just get them solved and gone.

To me, cap and trade, just invites a new Enron to set up in business, or maybe several, and then they would need regulation. They would be insured, and there would be default swaps for them, and then that would need regulation.

To get cleaner air -- step one -- close the 1000 dirtiest coal fired plants. We know which ones they are.

We pay the EPA to do that job. But they never do it.

It's like the Border Patrol guys in Arizona.

We never solve our problems because of slackadoshe and lackawill and nambypam.

What would Patton say? Or LeMay? Or Schwartzkoff?

What's needed at EPA is a retired Four Star with combat experience, an open-ended mandate signed by the President, and a clear simple mission statement, with a timeline, and a budget. Then you tell him, "General -- get it done!".

Doing is key.

No it doesn't. The main reason it doesn't is that the four nations with the highest rate of increase in green house gases have told the World that they MIGHT do something after everyone else has acted. Then, you have in the United States the environmentalists that put hurdles in front of any power project green or not. Until we address these big hurdles, any attempt at change in the United States is doomed to failure.

No it does not make good business sense. NO business interests were represented in the authorship of this opinion paper, and it shows in their recommendation and conclusions. Hopefully, they will go ahead and require a lower carbon target, they will find themselves outclassed by their competitors for the world market. And, that will help the companies in this country become a desirable alternative for comparable products. Lower carbon cap equals increased costs, just the way it is. Of course, the EU could continue to subsidize the EU companies, like they do for Airbus, so they can compete with US companies, but I suppose those pesky lawsuits by Boeing might create some problems at home and abroad, and how much longer will the taxpayers of the EU, already taxed at about 50%, be willing to provide that subsidy?

Answer: in case you missed it the first time, NO, not good business sense. Good for the politicians, bureaucrats, enviro groups looking to effect behavior change, bad for businesses.

A indirect tax on O2, no way. Emissions yes.

ed: Keeling et al 1992

ed: Its still a indirect tax system (silly person) whether you give them away or auction them.