Laura D'Andrea Tyson did an admirable job of defending President Obama's "progressive and ambitous" budget in yesterday's Wall St. Journal, except for the part on energy:

Critics of a cap-and-trade system are correct when they claim it will raise the prices of goods and services whose production and use emit carbon. That's exactly the point: Higher prices are necessary to encourage energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy, to discourage carbon emissions, and to reduce the societal costs of global warming.

Quick: can you name a good or service that is produced without using or emitting carbon? Me either.  That means if Obama's plan is implemented the cost of everything will be going up across the board, which is precisely the opposite of what you want to do in the middle of a deep recession. Tyson argues that this is "necessary" to change behavior to and to mitigate the "societal costs" of global warming.

Obama's cap and trade plan might be workable - or at least less harmful - if we weren't currently in such dire economic straits.  As much of a priority as energy independence is for America, stabilizing the financial system and turning the economy around is paramount and the president's ultimate responsibility.  Right now, the economic foundation of the country is being shaken to its core, and the idea of imposing onerous new regulations and taxes on energy that will stifle economic growth verges on reckless and irresponsible.

Instead of trying to use punitive measures like heavy taxes to change behavior, the other obvious course is to provide generous incentives to stimulate the desired behavioral change. Massive tax credits for business that invest in green technologies and massive credits for consumers who utilize those technologies in their everyday lives.

Put another way, given the precarious nature of the financial system and the fragility of the economy, now is the time to use big carrots to try and change energy policy in this country, not big sticks.