The White House is using a patently and demonstrably false line to defend cap-and-trade over the less inefficient tax: “And unlike a tax, [a White House aide] says, a cap ensures carbon reduction.”

Well, except when it doesn’t.

Of course, the WSJ reporter forgot that earlier in his piece he wrote:

Europe has embraced cap-and-trade rules. Emissions initially rose there because industries were given more permits than they needed, and regulators have since tightened the caps.

Yes, in theory that scheme — without perversions or sops — would reduce emissions. But politics demands perversions and sops, like giving away “too many” ration coupons and the minor problem of offset schemes. Like, say, the one in Waxman-Markey that allows more offsets than it even requires in “reductions.”

Covered under a cap-and-trade scheme similar to Waxman-Markey, Europe’s emissions rose — and more embarassing in terms of exposing it’s sham, they rose even as economy-wide emissions dipped! So not only doesn’t cap-and-trade reduce emissions — when it’s implemented by politicians — it is so subject to gaming that it even prompts emissions increases where economic activity would have indicated decreases.

In theory, cap-and-trade could reduce emissions. In practice it hasn’t. And as written, Waxman-Markey, on its face, admits it won’t.