With all due respect, I have just caught up with this.
I was commenting on another EDF thread where I left the message that follows.
Rather than re-write it, I hope you can follow it in the context it was written.
I have more to say on this, later.
But I hope you will reply.
__________________________________

Another carbon taxer here.

I read Nat's piece and I am sure we will talk soon.
I find his arguments on the CBO study really questionable, almost specious.

He had two.
One was that the CBO analysis was on a "straw-man" inflexible Cap.
I've seen that argument elsewhere. It's not true.

The CBO also combined the Cap with banking OR a Floor price; and the Cap with a Safety-valve and "managed borrowing".

These ARE the options that have been bantered about in legislative proposals.

In EVERY case, the CBO report found the carbon tax was superior in the efficiency of achieving our CC goals.
(that translates to cheaper and quicker.)

What Nat fails to identify, and what I feel he owes us, is exactly WHAT combination of "C&T&WHAT" he would like to see modeled against the carbon tax, in order for the carbon tax to be found to be the most cost-effective means of achieving our goals.

"Dear CBO – The CC legislation WILL contain the following policy parameters. Please model against the carbon tax."
And to say WHY he is certain that such a policy choice is the one that will ultimately be included in the CC legislation that passes.

Absent such a position, his "straw-man" argument has no validity in my humble opinion.

He claims the CBO finding that a carbon tax is superior to even the most flexible Cap-and-Trade policy is "flawed" because it is based on some estimated measure of the marginal cost of emissions-management.

He doesn't fault the estimated value, he faults the fact that the CBO did not consider that it will change in value over time – primarily driven by the fact of some unidentifiable "tipping points" in GHG management.

I say tipping points or not, all we have to go on is the 80 percent by 2050. Nobody is postulating an eneven, roller-coaster ride to 2050.

It may surprise NAT and EDF to know that some people out there want to know, for good reason, what this thing is going to cost.

That cost will be determined either by what the flexible carbon tax will be set at, or it will be determined in a money-dominated free-market inhabited by wildcat speculators in financial service products. Thanks, EDF for your choice.

I don't know why any economist would be promoting any solution that does not get us to our goals as cheaply as possible.

Finally, he complains that the CBO only modeled the "emissions" that need controlling as a policy tool, as opposed to the resulting "overall" levels of GHG in the atmosphere.

The only thing we can regulate and manage via our policies are levels of emissions.
He says as much.
He admits that "traditional" economic thinking puts us in that analytical posture.
Yet, he claims that such analysis is somehow flawed.

When you read the language of the BlueDog and other Democrats on the Boxer and Warner bills, you need to understand that the cost of solving our CC goals WILL BE a major factor in getting the sixty votes.

There is nothing in Nat's piece that convinces me that a C&T system is anything but a fool's mission.