Emissions: Why not discuss a simple cap?

Re: “Unlocking carbon gridlock in Washington a matter of inclusion" (Matt Driscoll column, 1-3).

If lowering carbon is the goal, why isn’t the debate about a simple statewide cap on emissions? No trade, no tax, just a limit proportional to each company’s prior production.

I’m not necessarily advocating the idea, but I’m interested in focusing debate on what happens when you really do reduce carbon emissions. That debate might also show who’s interested in real reduction and who’s only looking for a measure to move money around.

The tax in Initiative 732 or the possible Alliance measure might raise the price of gasoline enough that we skip that summer road trip, but overall the demand for energy is pretty constant (relatively inelastic to price), and we’ll pay whatever we have to.

I believe these measures will only rob Peter to pay Paul, with a cut taken by our tax system as the funds pass through.

This story was originally published January 4, 2016 at 1:49 PM with the headline "Emissions: Why not discuss a simple cap?."