Today’s WTF moment sponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who writes in the Oregonian that lawmakers should abandon cap-and-trade. He says:
Despite these obvious problems, federal and state lawmakers are poised to move forward with a cap-and-trade system. I’m working in Washington to oppose this proposal and to find an alternative. One option that needs further exploration is to establish a emissions cap and to direct polluters to either reduce emissions or to purchase certified offsets (reductions from other entities) to meet emission targets.
But given the devastating impact of past deregulation on U.S. energy and financial markets, I have serious concerns about using a “market-based approach” to solve serious problems. My colleagues in Congress, and Oregon legislators, would be wise to do their homework on a cap-and-trade system before moving forward with more deregulation.
So, instead of a cap-and-trade system he wants ... a cap, and emissions credits, that can be traded. Huh.
Even more confusing? DeFazio co-sponsored the Safe Climate Act last Congress, a cap-and-trade proposal from Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).
E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
liberalnun Posted 5:22 am
29 Jan 2009
Permalink
Eric Hess Posted 8:26 am
29 Jan 2009
Seems like there's a big loss of incentive to reduce emissions. In cap and trade, if a company reduces their emissions below their allowance, they can sell extra credits and profit.
And, measuring offsets can be difficult and uncertain. What happens to the offset forest if it burns down in 20 years, emitting all its carbon into the atmosphere?
Permalink
Backcut Posted 8:44 am
29 Jan 2009
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink