Cap and Trade vs. Carbon Tax

John Doggett and Jim Nolen square off on this important economic issue. This debate was co-hosted by Net Impact's UT Undergraduate Chapter and Professional Chapter. A big thank you to Net Impact, Senior Lecturer of Management John Doggett and Distinguished Senior Lecturer of Finance Jim Nolen for letting us film and share their insights.

[@EdSuastegui]

The basic problem (as John Doggett acknowledged) is that no one knows how much carbon needs to be reduced or removed. Without that crucial parameter *neither* a tax *nor* a cap can be set to solve the alleged problem. In short, if you don't know how much to turn the thermostat to reduced world temperatures to some ideal level (which no one has defined *either*), then you don't know what the right level of CO2 is, and the mechanism to control it (tax or cap) is *meaningless*.

[@olanlevan8470]

None of this makes any sense or any difference. When it comes down to it, were are talking about punishment or restrictions, to use technology that is readily available. Thus there are only 2 ways to solve the problem. 1 capture the carbon at the source, thereby completely eliminating carbon output period or #2, release the technologies, patents that will replace the current technologies. And by this I mean pass a special law that releases patented technology that is sitting on the shelf, and which specifically is technology that competes with carbon poducing technology. Offer protection to inventors and creators of these technologies through law in which once submitted these patents become special category carbon competing technology public utilities thus limiting the creaters/ inventors of risk, and yet offers them an incorporated status enforced by law, in which they can own stock in their invention. So in conclusion dont waste your time on motivation. Simply capture the carbon, or release the technology to a special public utility.