<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Problem with cap-and-trade is substance, not style</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/03/11/problem-with-cap-and-trade-is-substance-not-style/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/03/11/problem-with-cap-and-trade-is-substance-not-style/</link>
	<description>Politics and policy from inside Washington</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:23:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Handley</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/03/11/problem-with-cap-and-trade-is-substance-not-style/comment-page-1/#comment-7366</link>
		<dc:creator>James Handley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/?p=3488#comment-7366</guid>
		<description>Yes, use the most powerful economic medicine available -- prices -- to dislodge the &quot;incumbent technologies&quot;: fossil fuels.  For example, as long electricity can be made from coal at a fraction of the cost of renewable alternatives, low-carbon energy alternatives can&#039;t gain a foothold.  

Cap-and-trade is a hidden, volatile and regressive carbon tax, which Wall St would set and collect.  

A revenue-neutral carbon tax is explicit, predictable and with revenue recycling as you suggest, it&#039;s progressive.  See http://www.carbontax.org.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, use the most powerful economic medicine available &#8212; prices &#8212; to dislodge the &#8220;incumbent technologies&#8221;: fossil fuels.  For example, as long electricity can be made from coal at a fraction of the cost of renewable alternatives, low-carbon energy alternatives can&#8217;t gain a foothold.  </p>
<p>Cap-and-trade is a hidden, volatile and regressive carbon tax, which Wall St would set and collect.  </p>
<p>A revenue-neutral carbon tax is explicit, predictable and with revenue recycling as you suggest, it&#8217;s progressive.  See <a href='http://www.carbontax.org.'>http://www.carbontax.org.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CTF</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/03/11/problem-with-cap-and-trade-is-substance-not-style/comment-page-1/#comment-7355</link>
		<dc:creator>CTF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:33:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/?p=3488#comment-7355</guid>
		<description>Yes!  A revenue-neutral carbon tax is absolutely the best means by which to stem the tide of global climate change.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes!  A revenue-neutral carbon tax is absolutely the best means by which to stem the tide of global climate change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: drewbie</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/03/11/problem-with-cap-and-trade-is-substance-not-style/comment-page-1/#comment-7314</link>
		<dc:creator>drewbie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:09:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/?p=3488#comment-7314</guid>
		<description>Returning the tax to the taxpayers would completely defeat the purpose of it.  The idea is to make carbon-based energy more expensive so people buy something else.  Offering it as a rebate to make clean energy more affordable could work.

The trouble with the new &quot;pollution reduction&quot; name is its innaccuracy.  The C&amp;T experiment called the Kyoto treaty showed that it has zero impact on carbon emmission.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Returning the tax to the taxpayers would completely defeat the purpose of it.  The idea is to make carbon-based energy more expensive so people buy something else.  Offering it as a rebate to make clean energy more affordable could work.</p>
<p>The trouble with the new &#8220;pollution reduction&#8221; name is its innaccuracy.  The C&amp;T experiment called the Kyoto treaty showed that it has zero impact on carbon emmission.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
