Garcilaso’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Well, I'm confused, because the point of cap-and-trade is to raise energy caosts, albeit gradually, until folks switch to alternative fuels. Right?

  But, whether the cost is $79/year per family of 2.56 people (Lane's figure) or $340/year per family of four (MIT's figure, via GMCP's comment above), I can't figure out how a jump in utility, gas, and food prices of either $6.58/month (Lane) or $28.33/month (MIT) is going to get people to switch to alternative energy sources. Is the price of a latte every other week or happy meals for the family twice a month really going to be enough to get people to switch to wind and solar?

  Kate Sheppard pointed out last week that the President promised to use $15 billion in revenue to support alternative fuels, and Congress seems to be eyeing the rest of the revenue for things like healthcare reform (http://www.grist.org/article/2009-03-27-reid-says-dems-might-use/). So which is it? Is cap-and-trade really cheap, in which case it won't cost most people that much (but won't provide much incentive to change)? Or is it a source of revenue, i.e. an indirect tax?

  On Republicans claim carbon bill impact on families that is off by -- no kidding -- 98% posted 8 months ago 4 Responses