Interesting opinion in favor of cap-and-trade for curbing carbon emissions (instead of a carbon tax), by the president of Environmental Defense Fund. The author argues convincingly that a carbon tax could be used as a license to pollute, whereas a cap is more effective in achieving additional reductions below current levels, and reselling them to others as carbon credits. This article is reasonable, well thought-out and provides ample factual evidence to back its points.

This is a well reasoned and persuasive opinion piece in its argument for an emissions cap and trading of emission permits. What it doesn't address, though, is the devisive issue of how allowances would be allocated.

Krupp has better credentials than most of the authors in the WSJ, but the article is limited in perspectives and options. The article in The Bulletin provides more diverse viewpoints to consider.

while mr. krupp's arguments are effective and sound compelling , what i would want to see included are both more than one example from the world, and more sources, voices from experience, even from the example he offers about acid rain, from the companies involved then.