20 Nov Cap & Trade v. Carbon Tax

Hi again everyone!

A guest post from Sierra Club Intern, Michelle, is below!

Last night, I attended the Energy Debate: Cap & Trade vs. Carbon Tax. I listened to two UT professors battle it out in front of a crowd of students as they defended their positions on the issue of a solution to the climate crisis. Professors Jim Nolen and John Doggett pressed their arguments for the system that would best curtail as well as reduce carbon emissions. The audience (most of whom were students with little exposure to the issue) was soon engaged in this enlightening discussion that is gaining headway in the environmental and political communities.

Doggett supported the carbon tax, claiming it to be transparent and predictable to taxpayers. He used British Columbia as an example, as Canadians already implement this system with success. Doggett argued that accountants, bookkeepers, and the like wouldn’t be needed to regulate this system, like they would in a cap and trade system. He also stated that a carbon tax would promote innovation and reward “green” choices by investing in clean technology and returning the money to taxpayers.

Nolen introduced his argument in favor of cap and trade by first emphasizing the reality of America’s economic situation. He challenged the idea that the carbon tax would make its way to American wallets when the country is in a $12 trillion deficit. He went on to explain the logistics of both systems. In the system of cap and trade, the cap limits the volume of permits and the marketplace develops trade, whereas with the carbon tax, the government sets the price of carbon and the marketplace determines the volume. Later in the debate, Nolen stated that carbon pricing is not a problem associated with climate change. Carbon volume, on the other hand, is, and the cap and trade system deals directly with volume.

Doggett began his rebuttal by discussing the disadvantages of the cap and trade system. First, someone has to regulate it. Second, the system penalizes those who exceed their cap with a fine (something easily paid by wealthy polluters who can proceed to buy more permits). Doggett also claimed that cap and trade won’t be adopted worldwide because it’s infrastructure won’t work outside the United States. It is especially crucial for polluting countries like China and India to cooperate, Doggett emphasized, for carbon emissions to be lowered.

Nolen’s rebuttal outlined the problems with the carbon tax. He stressed that the tax isn’t high enough to promote “green” lifestyles, as most Americans and all rich polluters will simply pay the tax. He also claimed that the carbon tax “won’t politically happen.” Nolen then responded to Doggett’s arguments about the global stage and dismissed the possibility of convincing the Chinese and others to adopt a carbon tax.

Nolen and Doggett discussed an incredibly relevant issue in front of a large group of interested students. The debate was both entertaining and informative and revealed the type of conservation taking place at UT. Professors like Nolen and Doggett are bringing critical, global issues to the platform of discussion at this institution and are thus encouraging students to dive into serious topics and offer solutions of their own.

After reading this, do you support the carbon tax or cap and trade? It would be easier for you to formulate your opinion if you witnessed the debate firsthand, so try to make it out to another university debate to see it for yourself.