The first policy we will analyze is the Cap and Trade approach, championed by many Democrats, as well as flip-flopping Republicans. Cap and Trade's main goal is to steadily reduce carbon emissions and other pollutants across the nation in a cost effective manner.
Each company or polluter will have a limit, or a cap, on the amount of pollution they can emit. They are issued pollution permits up to that amount. If need be, restrictions on pollution can get tighter for more greenhouse gas reduction. They key part of cap and trade is that companies that efficiently and cheaply cut their pollution levels are free to sell their extra credits to the companies that cannot reduce as easily. Companies have large flexibility in buying and selling permits, achieving the same total reduction, but at a lower overall cost to the economy.
How is this so? Well, to start out with, we have to consider the alternative command and control policy. In command and control, each factory is required to make the necessary reductions, regardless of what the overall cost might be. The government sets clean air regulations, and companies must either upgrade their facilities, bearing whatever costs are involved, or break the law.
The figure above illustrates this point. In the traditional command and control approach, the government, for example, mandates a 30% reduction in emissions, or 300 tons of CO2. The cost to reduce for both plants together is $12,000. In the case of Cap and Trade, on the other hand, the cost to reduce overall is cheaper. This is because the revenue made from selling pollution permits to another plant adds additional profit.
Cap and Trade is known as a market-based policy, as opposed to a carbon tax, which would be called a corrective tax. Market-based policies work within the free market system to provide price incentives for companies or even individuals to reduce consumption.
Cap and Trade could prove an effective tool at reducing pollution if adopted. We encourage Congress to consider using these market-based policies to effect change in the environmental and energy policy reform. We can use economics to work for us by providing incentives to do the right thing, while still reducing overall costs.
