Explain this to me. The White House opposed the notion of global warming and/or the Kyoto Treaty because doing something about it and/or enforcing the treaty would “adversely affect business”. But if you take a stance like the Kyoto Treaty and create a market for carbon, aren’t you creating new business?
I’m not really sure who loses here. Oh sure, the fat cats in Carson’s Crazy Coal factory have to rewrite their business plans. But is that the only reason? If so, then someone’s not getting their money’s worth from whatever MBAs they have lying around.
Oh, our president is a failed MBA. Crap, there goes that zinger of an argument.
(As a point of interest, The Economist tackled something like this: Picking winners or making markets?)