Paterson's polluted plan

New York governor goes in the tank for industry, backs away from climate plan 12

It’s a shocking reversal from one of the states that pioneered efforts to deal with global warming from electric power plants.

The New York Times reveals that New York state’s accidental Gov. David A. Paterson has caved in to energy industry demands and now appears ready to run roughshod over his own experts to give industry free carbon emission permits.

Aside from the fact that this is a major policy retreat—and threatens to undermine President Obama’s strategy of requiring polluting power companies to buy carbon permits through an auction—there are several reasons why this is a rotten idea:

First, it looks as if Paterson has prejudged the issue by requiring his Department of Environmental Conservation to “reopen” state regulations. It smells like a violation of the state administrative procedures act. (Agencies like this aren’t supposed to commit to an end point of a regulatory process until the process itself ends.)

Second, it threatens to undermine the integrity of the regional greenhouse gas trading program, or RGGI, that has helped pave the way for a national program. Will other states follow Paterson in retreat?

And, third, it is a shocking reversal from the state that was a pioneer in the carbon auction approach (under the leadership of then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer).

By giving away free permits to polluters, Paterson appears to be aligning himself with people like Duke Energy’s Jim Rogers, who is maneuvering to kill climate legislation in Congress unless his company gets a major payoff in the form of free permits.

Why this change of course? The Times alludes to industry campaign contributions to Paterson. More reporting ought to be done on this. And reporters ought to ask Patterson if he supports Obama—or now is really in bed with the people who want to kill Obama’s climate initiative.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. caniscandida Posted 6:09 am
    07 Mar 2009

    Oops!: you Westerners!One T in "Paterson."  So just how illlittterate is Frankk O'Donnnelll?
    Paterson is cool and smart.  But he has blundered severely, on a couple of big problems.  Signs are, he has descended into power politics of a gross sort.  That is very sad, because he is a smart guy, who has bravely stood up for some noble causes in the past.
    O'Donnell does wrong simply to vilify Paterson, who does not deserve that at all.  The environmentalist community should be communicating with the governor, asking him what his priorities are, and persuading him to take environmental causes seriously.

    Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

  2. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 7:26 am
    07 Mar 2009

    Massa is a Gassa!Instead of condemning Paterson, why not support NY Congressman Eric Massa.
    His historic drive to the Inauguration in a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle points the way to a carbon free future.
    If Grist stopped whining for a week, and devoted all its issues to Hydrogen, it would do more to help pollution than another 10 IPCC assessments.
    http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/chevy+equinox+fuel+cell/ ...

    Permalink

  3. Ted Clayton Posted 10:17 am
    07 Mar 2009

    It's the Economy. Yeah-huh.New York's economy is taking a beating, and to explain their new tolerance of CO2 industry doesn't really require any deeper analysis than that.
    And yes, other States are in a similar quandary, and should be expected to make similar moves in their own self-interest.
    Alternatives to CO2 are both extremely costly, and disruptive to existing economic infrastructure.
    It eases States' decision on this issue, that Obama's policies increasingly look like a mere token attack on CO2.
    Paterson is a nice guy - I doubt the motives & slavering failings leveled at him here have anything to do with New York's reversal.  No more than they do in the case of President Obama.  They're both between a rock & a hard place - plain 'n simple.

    Permalink

  4. Wolverine Posted 4:09 am
    08 Mar 2009

    Anyone Could See This ComingWhen Elliot Spitzer was replaced by Patterson, I commented here that this was a disaster for progressive politics in New York and the country generally, including the environment.  Spitzer would never have caved in to these pigs, but Patterson is neither progressive nor strong enough, so we get this result.
    I don't agree at all, Canis, that Patterson is cool.  Spitzer was cool, Patterson is just a typical liberal politician with a few progressive leanings.  Losing Spitzer was a disaster, and this is just one of many issues that will suffer because of it.
    Regardless of what anyone thinks of what Spitzer did, removing a politician from office because of personal behavior, regardless of how egregious that behavior that is, is just a way of removing those from office who people in power don't like.  Spitzer's use of prostitutes, which like drugs and gambling should be legal in the first place, was a ludicrous pretext for removing by far the most progressive and brave governor in the country.

    Permalink

  5. Max8806's avatar

    Max8806 Posted 4:15 am
    08 Mar 2009

    For once I agree with WolverineNot sure about legalizing prostitution though, there seems to be a spirited debate that I just have generally steered clear of.
    But I was really worried about losing such a progressive and truly smart and knowledgeable guy on energy issues in such a key role at such a key time when Spitzer went down. And when I heard this news, first thing I thought was Spitzer would never have done that.

    Max Epstein

    Permalink

  6. Sam Wells Posted 5:16 am
    08 Mar 2009

    Paterson's dilemmaThe RGGI is not a New York thing but is a consortium of Northeast states where certain power companies, industries, and environmental groups have forked to raise a few hundred million by selling carbon permits for auction prices somewhere around 3-4 dollars a ton.  
    The low credit auction values reflect the fact that the RGGI is "skimming the cream of the top" rather than making meaningful reductions. I have high hopes for it too, but to make that mandatory in one area and not another can really mess up the markets. Of course Paterson knows the realities of the situation, that carbon credits should be mandated nationally, and something would have to be done about purchasing electric power from Canada (and to the south, Mexico). For example, some of the power consumed through the grid comes from the Ohio Valley, which relies on stinky old coal. Interstate Commerce Clause, folks.
    In my port work for New York and New Jersey, greenhouse gases were and are a hot topic. There have been some major improvements on the land-side, such as the port loading and unloading equipment, but again there was a major regulatory roadblock because international ships are regulated by the IMO, not even the EPA. Let's not even mention that cleaner fuels, as opposed to that high sulfur fuel used in ships, result in HIGHER CO2 emissions.  International treaties, folks, and the US hasn't even signed the IMO regulations!
    So it's a difficult issue with lots of national and international implications. It is easy to wildly speculate and imagine that Elliot Spitzer would be more forceful on the issue, since he also knows that defending against lawsuits of this kind are more difficult than going after some dirty trading on Wall Street (for which had partial jurisdiction). Some people will make up the darnedest things to "prove their point."
    To his credit, Paterson has denied an LNG facility in Long Island Sound called Broadwater.  he has many other energy-related programs and initiatives. I'm not defending him as much as to say you're taking unfair pot-shots at him for grappling with a very difficult and complex situation.  -sam

    Onward through the fog

    Permalink

  7. Max8806's avatar

    Max8806 Posted 6:21 am
    08 Mar 2009

    Sam,the worse the economy, the lower the economic growth projections, the lower the energy demand growth projections, and the lower the carbon price. So saying the economy isn't well enough now is a foolish excuse because when the economy is growing fast people will just complain that prices are too high already (for example, the gas price issue of quite recently).
    I'm not calling Patterson evil. Every politician has limited political capital and has to trade off concessions on things important to him or her for gains on things that are more important to them. I'm just claiming that Spitzer's priorities were more in line with my own, in that he clearly cared very seriously about, and was very knowledgeable about the energy issue. This is not wild speculation. He spoke very forcefully and earnestly (as best I could tell, but it was quite convincing) at the Conference of Governors about this a couple years back, and know he spoke and wrote about it impressively elsewhere as well.
    This is not even to mention of course the vindication that should have been widely credited to him after AIG went bust.

    Max Epstein

    Permalink

  8. josullivan58 Posted 8:34 am
    08 Mar 2009

    Rememberthat Paterson was not elected Governor. He is a conservative Democrat in a liberal Democrat state. He might not be the Democratic candidate next election.
    I understand here in NY and NYC the economy is particularly bad so somethings have to change, but to hold a secret meeting to change critical AGW laws is unacceptable.
    The NYT also had an editorial about this:

    A Need to Clear the Air

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/opinion/07sat4.html?th& ...

    Permalink

  9. Sam Wells Posted 11:23 am
    08 Mar 2009

    Thanks MaxI used to live in Connecticut so I had a pulse on the NY economy and its state of politics ... being in Texas now I'm rather in the dark other than to say that NY and NJ are doing things VERY differently from California, which to me is interesting. So I appreciate the message Max and no way do I know everything or take offense for me being slightly off-message.
    I do think I get some minor "Brownie points" for noticing that what NY and NJ are doing is diametrically opposed to what California is doing. There is definitely a sentiment to NOT do like they did in California. That might confuse people, don't you think? The goals are the same but the objectives are radically different.

    sam

    Onward through the fog

    Permalink

  10. Erik Hoffner's avatar

    Erik Hoffner Posted 1:28 pm
    08 Mar 2009

    offThe governor is pretty new, hard to know exactly where he stands yet, I think. But you may infer some things about his judgment from this ill-conceived public support of Israel's incursion into Gaza:
    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/13/pro_israel_supporte ...
    It's one thing to support Israel, but to rally publicly in support of an illegal action that was killing of hundreds and hundreds of civilians?
    Erik

    The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

    Permalink

  11. davedenali Posted 12:47 am
    09 Mar 2009

    Dem challenger neededGovernor Paterson needs a primary challenger. He is governor by a fluke and this decision suggests it wast a fortuitous one.  

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement