Republicans like Mike Pence still have a hard time accepting the scientific method and scientific conclusions like the fact that we descended from apes and are changing the climate. You've probably seen this encounter Pence had with Matthews.
I actually think that Pence and the Reps more or less accept that it is at least very likely we are changing the climate, but they have a hard time telling inconvenient truths to their base. I think this because Pence seemed evidently annoyed not to be focusing on the Republican energy plan, which in some aspects does begin to address the issue of climate change alongside energy independence. So let's let the Reps off the hook for a bit and not force them to confront the aspect of their base that denies the scientific approach to understanding the world: whether it be genetics, evolution, or climate. In a way it's a little bit of a red herring that let's them get their "all of the above" rhetoric go by without direct challenge, so let's get down to brass tacks and compare plans.
The approaches are compared and assessed from a "liberaltarian" standpoint. I probably have greater credence in the power of properly functioning markets to achieve broadly Rawlsian political ends than some around here, though I'm much more prepared to recognize that markets aren't always well-functioning than most libertarians and part ways with libertarians altogether on issues of basic social infrastructure like health and education. In any case, even if you don't share my point of view (indeed, especially if) you may find my way of putting things helpful in persuading others.
DEM plan:
The Dems offer a market-based understanding and approach to stopping climate change. The first thing the Dems have going is a clear understanding of the source of the problem. Right now we have a limited resource that is being given away for free. That resource is the earth's ability to absorb and store greenhouse gas emissions, principally CO2.
This problem creates perverse economic incentives. If you don't have to pay to pollute then pollution pays. Some one else pays the cost in the harm done to the environment. Economists call this a "negative externality", where someone not party to a transaction pays cost. Economic incentives are such that if you can externalize a cost it is rational, from the standpoint of self-interest, to do so.
You can think of it as a huge subsidy in the form of free waste disposal, and if you subsidize something you get more of it. We can't continue this course of more and more greenhouse gas emissions. We must remove the subsidy. That's what cap and trade does.
Now, the Republicans criticize this as an "energy tax" and exaggerate the cost to consumers because the result will be slightly higher energy costs, but it is not a tax at all. It is a way of fixing a market failure by creating a market. Furthermore, if the plan is executed properly you'll see that money back in the form of grants to make your home more efficient and maybe even produce some energy for yourself.
Over the long run, this will bring energy prices down through reduced waste. Money raised through cap and trade will also be reinvested in modernizing the energy grid in ways that will open up competition by letting smaller producers of alternative energy get in the game. With the proper incentives in place, market forces and incentives will optimize the allocation of resources to stop changing the climate.
REP plan:
By contrast, the Rep plan is classic Washington DC thinking. They don't want to internalize the externalities, calling that a "tax". Instead, they want to have Congress allocate subsidies from the general tax fund. This means that you the consumer will have no way to avoid paying. Remember, you can avoid paying the added cost from cap and trade by conserving energy, but the Republican plan uses money from income taxes which there's no way to avoid. Where the Dems empower individuals to save money and energy by changing their behavior, the Reps are much more collectivist in that they use non-targeted taxation to fund their favored subsidies and corporate welfare.
A further contrast comes out in considering how resources will be allocated under the two plans. The GOP wants Congress to choose the winners. I call this a "corruptionist" approach, where subsidies are allocated not by market forces but by politicians directed by campaign contributions or obligations to special interests. The Dems have not been immune to this approach, by the way. Arguably, biofuels have been over-invested in because of Dem political interests.
Under the Rep plan, the winners are just who you would expect: coal, oil, and nuclear industries. For example, the Reps want to redistribute money from the general tax fund to give away to coal companies to allegedly research carbon sequestration technology. First, this creates oversight problems because we won't necessarily be able to track the handouts. Second, why should Congress decide what the best way to stop changing the climate is? Does anyone trust Mike Pence and the gang to determine that carbon sequestration is more efficient than solar or wind?
Furthermore, the emphasis on nuclear energy from the Reps is misguided. Since when do Reps take their cues from the French? I have no inherent opposition to nuclear but am wary for three reasons: (1) because of military applications global trade in nuclear fuel is strictly controlled, (2) because of safety concerns nuclear energy production must be strictly regulated and monitored, (3) spent nuclear fuels is an environmental hazard and there's no good long term storage plan in place. For these reasons nuclear energy production has an extremely high entry cost, tends to be dominated by a few big players working closely with government, and tends to be quasi-socialistic in that regard.
Assessment and some cautions:
The Dem market-based approach seems clearly superior to the corruptionist approach of the Reps. Proper functioning markets do better at allocating resources optimally than a system of political patronage. Currently, our energy market is not properly functioning and the cost of climate change will be the blow back from negative externalities. The most important thing to do is internalize the externalities and empower individuals to make the prudent decisions that save money and stop changing the climate.
Here are some things to look for as legislation moves forward. First, Congress will want to put all kinds of loopholes, handouts, and exemptions into the cap and trade auction. This must be avoided because it will distort the market price. I understand that in Europe they had some problems with cap and trade for exactly this reason. We should learn from that mistake and have a pure, %100 auction.
Second, it is important that money raised through cap and trade not be re-allocated in a "Congress picks the winners" kind of way. I've mentioned the biofuels issue above. There should be as little of that in the bill as possible. The best things to do with the cap and trade revenues are: (1) give it back to consumers in grants to make homes more energy efficient, and (2) invest in a modern energy grid that allows more variety and competition in energy production.
If done correctly, cap and trade is the key to creating a virtuous dynamic of economic growth with opportunities for American ingenuity and entrepreneurship that also gives individuals the incentive to stop changing the climate.
Political concerns:
We're already beginning to hear rumblings from "moderate Democrats" that climate legislation should be passed over yet again. So, please contact your Congressperson and let them know that you support %100 auction cap and trade legislation without loopholes or handouts. Let them know that our economic and ecological future is too important to be decided by corruptionist forces and that you want legislation that empowers Americans to save energy and create new businesses. We can do this and once again claim our place as a world leader in entrepreneurship and technological innovation.
We may not get another chance to pass strong climate legislation. It is extremely important to contact your representatives and let them know you support cap and trade. It is also extremely important for us to engage in effective debate on the issue whenever possible. The "moderates" are wavering and the corruptionist approach of tossing around subsidies is the easy way out.