Debate Recap

Tonight was the climate debate where I defended "cap and trade" against 2 senior EPA staff who are very critical of the plan and are calling for a carbon fee (tax) model.  I'm sure Allan and his wife Laurie carried the evening in terms of the audience reaction.  But I made my points.  Cap and Trade isn't as good as Carbon Tax, but it's more politically viable.  As evidence I submitted a graph showing different US states heavily invested in coal as a source of electricity.  This represents "equity investments" made in cheap fossil fuel by key political states.  To get these states to participate in any climate change / GHG reduction plan, you have to buy them off with free "emissions credits" or perhaps, the hated offsets (offsets are supposedly very susceptible to fraud, because no one can verify their claims to reduce GHG emissions).  I don't see any other way other than cap and trade but perhaps I'm too pessimistic.