The question uppermost on my mind was whether HRC would support either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade plan, since this is frankly the only part of the standard liberal agenda on energy that's really very risky to endorse. I'm told that both are essentially the same thing in practice, so it's no surprise that the leading candidates, now including Hillary, have all chosen the cap-and-trade route, which raises energy prices but doesn't include the dread word "taxes." The upside of this, I think, is that a properly designed cap-and-trade plan actually ought to be better than a carbon tax. The downside is that one has to trust that the plan will be properly designed, which is sort of a sucker bet, isn't it?
Anyway, Dave has the details in condensed, reader-friendly format over at Grist. The next step is for someone to compare the plans from the three leading Dems to see if there are really any significant differences in their approaches. My first pass suggests some modest differences in emphasis, but that's about it. More later as I dive into the details.