Phil Kerpen is not a fan of EPA style regulation:
Opponents of massive new energy taxes and regulations breathed a small sigh of relief last month when the Lieberman-Warner climate-tax bill went down in flames on the Senate floor. Even 10 Democrats broke from the party line and voted against it, writing that they would have opposed the bill on final passage. Unfortunately, power-mad bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency remain undaunted. The EPA is expected today to release a document that blueprints a dizzying array of greenhouse-gas regulatory programs under dozens of different provisions of the 1970 Clean Air Act. The document, called an “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” will formally begin the process of implementing restrictions more draconian than those in the Lieberman-Warner bill — all without a single vote of Congress.
I’m not a fan of regulatory approaches over price based approaches either, which is why I supported the Lieberman-Warner bill. But wouldn’t intellectual honesty have required that Phil admit his National Review colleagues were opponents of this Lieberman-Warner bill?
Greg Mankiw is a member of the Pigou Club:
In today’s Washington Post, CBO director Peter Orszag says that if a cap-and-trade system for carbon is to be maximimally effective, the allowances should be sold rather than handed out, and fluctuations in the price of an allowance over time should be limited. In other words, the cap-and-trade system should be designed to resemble a carbon tax. Makes sense, but it seems like lawmakers are going through a lot of needless work just to avoid the word “tax.”
The piece by Orszag can be found here.