Cap and Trade Fees Here To Stay

Interesting account of an interview with Governor Brown via a commentary on the bullet train in the Los Angeles Daily News. A reporter assumes revenues from cap and trade fees on carbon will eventually go down since those fees are supposed to reduce carbon pollution. Nope, as the Governor himself points out:

At a news conference in May, Gov. Jerry Brown was asked about the cap-and-trade spending. A reporter wondered if he had a long-term plan, “because as pollution goes down, the revenues will go down.”

“No, not quite,” Brown answered. “Pollution — we’re not as successful with reducing carbon pollution as we are with what they call ‘criteria’ pollutants, like sulfur, carbon monoxide, NOx, things like that. Carbon pollution is still rising. Worldwide. And so one of the principal strategies is to put a price on carbon. And a price that will rise. To increase the burden of using carbon.”

The reporter asked again, “But these revenues will taper off at some point and begin to go down, yes?”

“I don’t think so,” Brown answered.

“Spending will continue,” the reporter said.

 Spending will continue,” Brown confirmed. “There will be a gradual rise. And I would imagine as, assuming climate change becomes more evident, there will be efforts to ramp up even further the price of carbon.”

As the writer points out, the governor is widening the definition of pollution so the penalty fees can go up.

What's always bugged me about this cap and trade crap is some proponents referring to it as a market based way of dealing with pollution. This has nothing to do with a market- free or otherwise. It's about arbitrary labeling of pollutants so the government can make money.