Richardson, Obama, and Energy Policy

Special credit to Senator Obama for admitting that doing something to regulate carbon emissions will affect consumers. Richardson, not quoted here, tries to sell the idea that we can hammer the polluters in a way that won't take money out of the economy. Obama disagrees with him in a recent debate:

Under a cap-and-trade there will be a cost. Plants are going to have to retrofit their equipment, and that's going to cost money, and they will pass it onto consumers. We have an obligation to use some of the money that we generate to shield low-income and fixed-income individuals from high electricity prices, but we're also going to have to ask the American people to change how they use energy. Everybody's going to have to change their light bulbs. Everybody's going to have to insulate their homes. And that will be a sacrifice, but it's a sacrifice that we can meet.

Cap-and-trade is like a carbon tax, but it lets the market set the price - if you want to emit more CO2, you need to buy the ability to do so from someone with spare pollution allowances. What I don't like about it is the possibility of incomplete or uneven implementation of it that would render it a costly song and dance.

But Obama gets credit for cutting to the chase: Lifestyle Changes (1) are costly, and (2) require individuals to change their habits.