Ditching cap and trade (the phrase, not the proposal)

Looks like the White House is taking note of the same polling data Dan blogs about here on the public’s antipathy toward, or misunderstanding of, the phrase “cap and trade”.  This from the LA Times, in a story generally chronicling the administration’s efforts to figure out the best language and framing for its climate policies:

It seems clear that the White House is absorbing some of these messages. During Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, his website included a section devoted to energy and environmental protection. The phrase “cap and trade” popped up at several points.

In contrast, Obama’s White House website carries an energy section that makes no mention of “cap and trade.”

A list of energy policy talking points compiled by Obama’s Council on Environmental Quality is filled with poll-tested messages, such as variations on the phrase “clean energy jobs.”
The same story says that “global warming” is also on the chopping block, partly for reasons I blogged about here.  But I see no consensus yet on a good substitute.  “Carbon pollution” seems to be getting some play

, , , ,