PPI - Radically Pragmatic
  • Donate
Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • Locations
    • Careers
  • People
  • Projects
  • Our Work
  • Events
  • Donate

Our Work

Cap-and-Whatever

  • March 31, 2010
  • Ed Kilgore

Via TPM, I learned that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar went on CNBC today and said the administration would no longer be using the term “cap-and-trade” for its climate change proposals.

This decision does not appear to mean any change in the actual proposal, which would still presumably involve placing a “cap” on carbon emissions and then creating a system whereby credits for exceeding carbon goals could be “traded,” thus creating market incentives for pollution control efforts and technology. It’s the label that seems to be the problem, probably because conservatives have taken to calling it “cap-and-tax.”

I can sympathize with the rebranding effort (though it’s not clear what the new moniker will be). We at PPI — early proponents of “cap and trade” — spent years trying, without a lot of success, to find simple ways to explain the cap-and-trade approach to carbon emissions. It wasn’t as hard as, say, trying to write descriptions of the “revolution in military affairs,” another perennial head-scratcher, but it was never possible to capture it on a bumper sticker.

It probably doesn’t matter, so long as the administration and congressional proponents continue to make it clear that cap-and-whatever is a way to limit potentially catastrophic carbon emissions while employing market mechanisms to create incentives for private-sector innovations in clean energy technology. It is, indeed, the kind of market-friendly alternative to command-and-control environmental regulations that conservatives ought to find attractive, and often have in the past. But it’s the substance, not the politics, of this approach, that really matters, and that will remain regardless of the marketing.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/muora/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Related Work

Op-Ed  |  June 19, 2025

Ainsley for the New York Times: A Progressive Future Depends on National Identity

  • Claire Ainsley
In the News  |  June 13, 2025

Ainsley on ABC Radio National: Lessons for Global Centre-Left Parties from Labor’s Win

  • Claire Ainsley
Op-Ed  |  June 13, 2025

Marshall for The Hill: Factory Jobs Aren’t the Future Working Americans Want

  • Will Marshall
In the News  |  June 12, 2025

Marshall in Politico: ‘It’s a winner for him’: Dems work to turn LA debate from immigration to Trump’s executive powers

  • Will Marshall
In the News  |  June 12, 2025

Ainsley on The Spectator’s Coffee House Shots Podcast: Is Rachel Reeves’s Headroom Shrinking?

  • Claire Ainsley
Op-Ed  |  May 28, 2025

Ryan for Newsweek: Trump Policies Hurt Workers in America’s Heartland. Democrats Have to Say So

  • Tim Ryan
  • Never miss an update:

  • Subscribe to our newsletter
PPI Logo
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Donate
  • Careers
  • © 2025 Progressive Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved.
  • |
  • Privacy Policy
  • |
  • Privacy Settings