From Matthew Yglesias, I learned about this long, thoughtful, well-reasoned editorial in the LA Times assessing the different methods of attacking global warming. Although I feel like everyone who writes about global warming should at this point be able to say "everyone knows what's going to happen if we don't take action about climate change," I see that the editorial doesn't agree with me, and leads with the long, accurate gloom and doom scenario before running the three methods that the public sector can use to address the rising tide. Between regulation, cap-and-trade and a carbon tax, the editorial makes a compelling argument for the carbon tax. Very compelling in fact:

A carbon tax simply imposes a tax for polluting based on the amount emitted, thus encouraging polluters to clean up and entrepreneurs to come up with alternatives. The tax is constant and predictable. It doesn't require the creation of a new energy trading market, and it can be collected by existing state and federal agencies. It's straightforward and much harder to manipulate by special interests than the politicized process of allocating carbon credits.

And it could be structured to be far less harmful to power consumers. While all the added costs under cap-and-trade go to companies, utilities and traders, the added costs under a carbon tax would go to the government — which could use the revenues to offset other taxes. So while consumers would pay more for energy, they might pay less income tax, or some other tax. That could greatly cushion the overall economic effect.

And this is why I think a little re-framing is in order. Nobody will vote for a 'carbon tax,' even if they read this entire piece and understand it's better for them and all consumers. The battle over the word 'tax' is lost. Find a new way to express this concept, avoiding the t-word, and we can have this discussion successfully. That's not the case now.