Ok, I'm in another state now...

As I was saying, cap and trade seems ripe for corruption, giving legitimacy to those companies who will simply pay to pollute. More legitimacy than restrictive regulations would give them, at least.

I shouldn't have to elaborate on this, but will point out that the 2009 bill gave companies the credits for free, thereby locking in their already substantial power. Further attempts to lower emissions are likely to be stymied by corporations' effective ownership of government... yes, much as will likely happen with simple regulations.

But cap and trade creates another layer of complication to take advantage of.

The emissions will still have to be carefully monitored, and fines (effectively) assessed. I suppose what politicians like about is that instead of attempting to fine or (eventually) prosecute, they can simply let the companies buy their way out in a more pleasing manner.

So far no more efficient...

But then a new commodities market is created, and we've seen how that can backfire.

And then you take it globally, and corruption becomes even more of a problem.

Yes, I do see that it could be an effective tool, were human nature otherwise. And I have read that the technique has worked well to restrict sulfur dioxide emissions in the US... so perhaps I'm overreacting.

But I still smell a scam.