Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
Overall, very novel and interesting proposal to link atmospheric temperatures with policy design. However, more development of how the policy would work in practice would be welcome. Is the marginal response to temperature shifts large enough to meaningfully change behavior? Likely would need a higher increment than proposed here, which would consequently introduce new challenges associated with policy enactment.
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
1. Cap and trade was effectively branded as "cap and tax." It has all of the political disadvantages of a carbon tax, but a revenue-neutral carbon tax has a shot at being presented as new and different from the failure of cap and trade. Still, does branding it a cap and tax make it any more politically palatable? My concern is that cap and trade is basically dead on the Republican side, very hard to resurrect.
2. Intellectually developed, but what exactly is this cap and trade proposal adding that is genuinely new? At least it is revenue neutral.
3. This is a well-presented proposal, but it largely restates the typical emissions trading package that has been passed internationally to date. There is very little that seems novel or creative here, and it resembles in some ways the failed Waxman-Markey bill (except, admittedly, in its revenue-neutrality). The most underdeveloped aspect is likely the floor/ceiling which is presented somewhat uncritically given the complications that floor and ceilings have created in other carbon pricing schemes.
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
