As discussed in our brief on Decarbonization (linked in Further Reading), reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a key strategy for reducing global temperature increases. There are many ways to achieve this goal with new technologies, such as requiring Americans to use electric vehicles instead of those powered by gasoline. Cap and trade offers another strategy, one that leaves it up to individual decision-makers to decide when and how they will reduce greenhouse gasses. Is cap and trade a good alternative or complement to government regulations?

As discussed in our brief on decarbonization, most strategies for reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere involve switching to power generation and transportation technologies that produce less CO2. An alternate strategy is to extract and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, referred to as sequestration. At first glance, sequestration could be an attractive option for achieving the “net zero” goal, where the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would remain constant instead of increasing. Instead of building costly new renewable energy sources, retrofitting buildings, and switching to electric vehicles, sequestration offers a way for society to continue producing and using energy largely as we do now. The primary difference is that we would have to implement enough sequestration measures to offset global CO2 emissions. The question is, is sequestration on the levels required to achieve this outcome even possible? What would it cost?

Suppose you are reading this brief on an iPad. Apple is an American company, so your tablet must have been produced in the United States. Maybe not. Today, many corporations are headquartered in one country but manufacture in others and buy supplies from many more. This practice is called offshoring. Offshoring allows companies to lower their costs. However, offshoring also moves jobs from the United States to other countries. Is offshoring a good thing or a bad thing for Americans?