GOP Sen. Bond thinks climate policy is just too confusing 6

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Ken Johnson Posted 6:53 pm
   09 Jul 2009

   Kate - You make light of a serious issue, and a legitimate question: What is the point of combining all this stuff into the monolithic monstrosity that W-M has become? Why not have a set of individual sectoral regulations that have strictly limited scope -- and therefore limited political opposition? Consolidating all of these measures into a monolithic, economy-wide cap-and-trade framework has the effect of consolidating the political opposition. It also doesn't make much sense from a policy perspective.For example, what is the point of putting transportation under cap-and-trade while also imposing new EPA emission standards for vehicles? The cap-and-trade system will create a marginal incentive to spend up to about 20 cents to reduce fuel consumption by one gallon, e.g. by driving less or improving vehicle efficiency. That's minuscule compared to the incentive that people already have from fuel costs. The emission standards will create a much greater incentive -- closer to $1/gal. But since transportation is within the cap-and-trade system, the emission standard will have no impact on national emissions. Any emission reductions in transportation will result in surplus allowances (e.g. at refineries), which will be sold to the coal industry, allowing more coal combustion. Emission trading will similarly nullify potential environmental benefits of other complementary GHG-reduction measures. So what's the point of putting everything under cap-and-trade? (Or if we're going to do economy-wide cap-and-trade, why bother with complementary measures that won't reduce total emissions below the cap level?)

   Permalink

2. 

   randino Posted 4:41 am
   10 Jul 2009

   I am from Missouri and grew up there.  One of the reasons I left were politicians like Kit Bond, who has long had a reputation for being dumber than a box full of rocks. Then I went to Ohio!!!  Go figure!!!Randy Cunningham

   Permalink

3. 

   davescott Posted 6:20 am
   10 Jul 2009

   Tax bills are also notoriousy complicated, and despite my own wish that Waxman-Markey were less cumbersome than it is, there is no reason to think that any legislation addressing a subject as large as this bill does would not be lengthy.As for Senator Bond, one of the most reliably pro-polluter votes in Congress, if he's suddenly become an advocate for simplicity he may want to look back to the Medicare Part D legislation.  Written by GOP committee chair and later drug industry employee Billy Tauzin, it was enormously complicated, absurdly generous to drug industry contributors, and Bond's "fiscally conservative" colleagues didnt have us pay a single dime for it. Hypocrisy thy name is today's Republican leadership.

   Permalink

4. 

   Miles Grant Posted 8:27 am
   10 Jul 2009

   When the bill was short, the GOP complained there wasn't enough detail and how can we be expected to consider a bill that doesn't have every i dotted and t crossed? Now that those details are filled in, they're complaining it's too long and complicated.These complaints are just a cover for the fact that the GOP has absolutely no climate plan of its own. (Or rather, it does have a plan - canned goods and handguns.)

   Permalink

5. 

   Aldo314 Posted 8:36 am
   10 Jul 2009

   Kate- Im from the Show Me state and think making fun of a guy named Kit with a real neat-o chart is perfectly fine. He's out in 2010 anyway. Ken- Maybe you can clarify your issue with the "monolithic monstrosity". Putting all these different sectors of our economy into cap and trade legislation is the point. If the refinery sells a credit to a coal plant or bus company that is okay because there are limited amounts of credits. (The limited amt of credits...thats the "cap" part of cap and trade) I don't see how cap and trade and CAFE standards are at odds because the cap and trade part of the bill is not something that applies to households.  

   Permalink