We need an economy-wide greenhouse gas bill that puts a price on GHG emissions and allows reallocation of capital in response. Congress increasingly appears unable to produce such a bill.
First came the fiasco of Lieberman-Warner, wherein it became quite apparent that the route to Congressional approval was paved with district-directed pork, stealing money out of CO2-reduction efforts and distributing it to any number of pet projects. Thankfully, that failed.
Then last week, Speaker Pelosi suggested that the great thing about cap-and-trade is that it gives Congress money to dole out to favored interests:
I believe we have to [implement cap and trade] because we see that as a source of revenue ...
Again, the idea that the purpose of a GHG bill is to reduce CO2 emissions is completely subsumed by salivation over the potential grab bag.
Now comes this, from E&E Daily ($ub. req’d), noting that given the choice between a California waiver and cap-and-trade, legislators from the rust belt prefer cap-and-trade. Why? Because it might give them a chance to throw some money back at their districts:
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), for example, pointed to the large new revenue stream often linked to a cap-and-trade system, saying that the money would help domestic automakers retool their plants to meet a tighter suite of emission standards.
“I think that ultimately this gets addressed in the energy bill to slash cap and trade,” Stabenow said. “It’s not enough just to talk about the regulations. If we want to have a domestic auto industry, we have to be provided support, particularly in the middle of this global credit crisis where we have to invest massive amounts of money and aren’t able to get credit.”
Is the purpose of a cap-and-trade bill really to provide bailout dollars to the auto industry?
If a bit of imperfection were simply the price of good policy, this wouldn’t be worth making a stink over. But bad climate legislation has a way of sticking around for a long-time—longer than we have. The Clean Air Act is 30+ years old and still mandates higher CO2 emissions. RGGI still provides no direct incentive for a host of CO2 reduction technologies (nor direct penalties for a host of CO2 sources). Kyoto is still suffering from mis-pricing due to grandfathering rules. If we pass a similarly flawed bill, we will implicitly be making a gamble that we can afford to put off meaningful action to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
I for one would like to see Congress take this issue a bit more seriously. If Congress truly appreciates the urgency of GHG reduction, they need to pass a strong, economy-wide bill immediately. All signs to date suggest that they are far more interested in figuring out how to tap a new revenue source. We must demand better—and I am increasingly of the opinion that the only way to get better is to bypass Congress entirely.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Comments
View as Flat
Miles Grant Posted 3:29 am
28 Jan 2009
Will environmentalists ever settle on a goal, or will we always shoot for the horizon? Will we fight for the best legislation Boxer, Pelosi and Waxman can get us, or will we knife them in the back? Sean, apparently, chooses the knife.
I feel like a broken record saying this, but diaries like this are EXACTLY why we lose. The deniers know they can sit back and count on us to implode under the weight of our own internal squabbles about who's green enough and who's a sellout (like that awful Debbie Stabenow! always worried about preserving jobs in her state! whatevs!).
http://www.nwf.org
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 4:19 am
28 Jan 2009
In other words, don't get caught up in the fact that we've been trying to get cap & trade for years and now seem to be on the cusp of getting it. What we have been asking for is not what is on offer, except in the headline. The details of C&T matter, and Congress is on a path to get them woefully wrong. I want the details right, not the headline. So should we all.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 4:35 am
28 Jan 2009
Cap and Trade is to compicated and has to many loopholes for the coal burning utilities to crawl through. It is a coal corporate lawyers wet dream and they can tie this up in the courts in segments or as a whole.
Real enforcable emission standards written in a straight forward way. This gives coal fired to much wiggle room and is not enforcable.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:57 am
28 Jan 2009
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 7:23 am
28 Jan 2009
My point is that at this moment in time, it seems to me like we are vastly more likely to get simple and effective CO2 regulation is the effort is led from the executive, rather than legislative branch.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 2:27 pm
28 Jan 2009
you worry too much about who will make money
forget the trade; concentrate on the cap
the limit is what is essential, and soon. the reason to be dour is that B*ngaman is on record opposing any strong cap in 2020 or 2030, and O is letting him take the lead. that is why no meaningful cap is likely to be enacted in next 4 years; the Big O won't push for it
if we can get a strong cap, I would give away the billions to whomever.
if we don't get a strong cap, it won't matter who is rich. our grandchildren will be dead
focus on the cap. snark all you want about the L-W bill, it had a pretty good cap. Anyway, better than you are likely to see in any bill enacted this year or next
hope I am wrong about that, but
one last defense of L-W: it forced a vote
all the gang of 10 and many others were happy to glad hand every enviro they met and declare undying fealty to the cause -- as long as it didn't cost them
once the vote was upon them, they had to focus and get real. that is how the process moves forward; it has to get real
Harry R*id will never get proper credit, but he was the hero
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:39 pm
28 Jan 2009
Subsidies work differently, once a commercial change wave gets going, adjusting caps won't stop it.
Renewable energy will cost less going forward as the fuel inflation spiral inevitably leaves fossil and nuclear energy in the dustbin. Mass production makes renewable energy and conservation cheaper. And it boosts consumption and makes fuel ever more expensive.
Cap and trade ought to die, but the fact that industries will be able to game it with the trade part, will make it pass anyway. The big money/power behind the scenes that is stealing every bit of stimulus cash, will scam every bit of cap and trade.
Then the GOP will cite cap and trade as raising energy prices for consumers and ineffective in reducing GHG come next election time.
Cap and trade is a loser, from a political, economic, and environmental perspective. It will be characterized as a "new tax" by "clean" coal ad campaigners going into the next election cycle. Which has already started in Nevada, Reid is being swiftboated already!
As I have said over and over, subsidy diversion, supported by New york's new junior senator BTW, is the only winner. Carbon taxing, the other alternative is political suicide, especially during a recession.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
SallyVCrockett Posted 2:18 am
29 Jan 2009
Permalink