Is Cap and Trade the Way to Go to Limit CO2?

I remain a skeptic about the need to cut global emissions of carbon dioxide. However, those who feel climate change is anthropogenic in origin won the election and are exercising their right to move policy in a direction they feel is best for the country. That's one of the wonderful thing about our democracy - the orderly transfer of power between those of different beliefs.

One issue that has not been resolved yet is whether to reduce CO2 emissions and discourage use of fossil fuels by taxing carbon emissions (a carbon tax) or by capping the amount of CO2 that can be emitted and allowing industry to trade their right to emit CO2 on the open market (a cap and trade system). In that regard, I found this article by Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund (in the Wall Street Journal, of all places) illuminating. He's making the case for a cap and trade system because he feels it is the surest way to put a limit on CO2 emissions. A carbon tax, in his opinion, would not reduce CO2 emissions, only make them marginally more expensive, and they would continue to grow.

I think Mr. Krupp is right about a cap and trade being most effective. I think he's wrong in guessing that alternative sources of energy will appear at the right time to allow for continued economic growth (which is inexorably tied to increases in energy production) if we limit carbon-based energy generation. But hey, I've been wrong before.