Hey, look, the New York Times and the Washington Post have decided it’s significant that Obama’s budget includes carbon auction revenue! I guess people are allowed to talk about it now. A good start might be reading my post on the subject from three $%@^! days ago. (Yes, I’m aware bitterness is unattractive.)
There are a few notable features of the treatment of cap-and-trade in the just-released budget proposal. I’ll break it up into a few posts.
First, the projected revenue seems strikingly low. Partly this is a function of the fact that the targets themselves, particularly in the short term, are fairly weak—14 percent under 2005 levels by 2020, 83 percent by 2050. (Sane climate policy would reduce emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, at least.)
Still, the proposal explicitly says that the administration expects 100 percent of the permits to be auctioned off. As Kate noted, the CBO estimated (PDF) that "the value of those allowances could total between $50 billion and $300 billion annually (in 2006 dollars) by 2020." The administration’s estimate—$83 billion a year by 2020—is well at the bottom end of those projections.
My guess—apparently confirmed by "senior White House officials" who don’t invite me to their conference calls—is that this is simple conservatism. The inclusion of any carbon revenue at all is sure to spark controversy, so they’re simply being cautious not to lay too ambitious a marker. It’s possible both the targets and the revenue could be boosted in the course of Congressional sausage-making, though color me somewhat pessimistic about that.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
N.Y. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand answers Grist’s questions on the Kerry-Boxer bill
Comments
View as Flat
ce1907 Posted 5:00 am
26 Feb 2009
The rest can be negotiated for votes. I don't care who gets rich
the focus should be saving the world. at least, doing something meaningful in that direction
without the strong near-term cap, any bill will be window-dressing
or just another tax source
no evidence that the Big O is ready to step up, or ever will be ready -- or even interested -- in stepping up
The Big O's guru, B*ngaman, is VEHEMENTLY against meaningful near-term cap
I am not hopeful
Permalink
sindark Posted 5:46 am
26 Feb 2009
Incidentally, if you use the EIA figures, this is the same as saying "a return to 1990 levels by 2020."
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Billhook Posted 5:49 am
26 Feb 2009
it is pathetic, and is simply not comensurate with the threat or the requisite rate of mitigation.
The US signed the UN.FCCC Berlin Mandate with the understanding that developed nations would cut their emissions significantly below 1990 levels,
before developing nations would be asked to constrain their emissions.
This target merely continues Bush's backsliding.
If this is the best Obama can manage, why should any nation trust the US's solemn word ?
Indeed, why should we bother to negotiate with you ? Stringent global sanctions against you would make far better sense.
As for the 14% target being presented on Grist as "fairly weak", ask yourself what it means for the core global objective of 350ppmv.
This is US leadership alright -
but only in the slide to glabal genocide -
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 5:52 am
26 Feb 2009
Fwiw, I am pulling your articles up same-day on Goog-News, using targeted search-phrases. Within hours, practically minutes, in fact. *
The real score-keeper knows the score, and nobody is really puffin' anybody.
Their stock continues to slide, yours climbs. If they think standing on someone else will make them taller at the end of the day - who's really puffin' who?
* Goog will take these terms, then give me (or anyone..) a feed on them, real-time.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:55 am
26 Feb 2009
grist.org
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 6:01 am
26 Feb 2009
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:19 am
26 Feb 2009
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:31 am
26 Feb 2009
Why not just skip the ineffectual bureaucracy and just start spending money.
It's better to leave future generations some intangible and replaceable, than it is to leave them a critically malfunctioning planet.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
hapa Posted 9:38 am
27 Feb 2009
Permalink