Grandfathering is Robin Hood’s evil twin 13

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   ce1907 Posted 6:04 am
   31 Jan 2008

   pie in the skyyou are not a serious person
   you will let the earth burn while you devise the perfect system never close to being implemented
   prove me wrong:  show me your votes
   show me the votes in the Congress that you have
   tell me the districts that you will win to get the necessary margin of victory
   you cannot do it
   my bet:  you have never tried
   because you are not a serious person

   Permalink

2. 

   David Roberts Posted 6:20 am
   31 Jan 2008

   ce1907,I don't know you, but I'd wager substantial money that Alan Durning has done more to create tangible positive change in the world than you have, by several orders of magnitude.
   Your sneering contempt for anyone who does not share your particular pinched brand of realpolitik does nothing to persuade anyone. Try showing some respect.
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

3. 

   ce1907 Posted 6:32 am
   31 Jan 2008

   imagine thisyou are correct, of course
   I apologize to Alan, because my remarks were personal, my concerns are not personal, and I do not know Alan
   But suppose that the blogosphere is full of sneering people who imagine that the only choice is between ideal policy and the corruption of Congress.  Everyone who disagrees is assumed to be corrupt, or stupid.  Need examples?
   The bottom line is this:  there Lefties, my natural allies, will doom all hopes for Left policies -- because of their personal attitudes.
   Arrogance.  Sanctimonious.
   I am not saying Alan.  I am saying all of them.
   Quite simply, our children and grand children will suffer for this.
   So imagine this:  what Lefty in Congress would not want a 100% auction?  Who does not want 80% reductions -- or more?
   It will not pass.
   Will not.
   So do not flaunt (flaunt is the right word) your purity and devotion to justice and science and whatever
   while you (the crowd, my crowd) refuse to address the essential problem:  the votes.
   You do not have them.  You do not have a plausible plan for getting them.  And you avoid the topic
   instead spending your time in pure reverie
   while the world burns

   Permalink

4. 

   thadadkins Posted 8:21 am
   31 Jan 2008

   Interesting TakeSo ce1907 seems to believe that we should blind ourselves to insignificant details like scientific data and anecdotal warning signs, and focus exclusively on the immediately obtainable.  While pragmatism can be a virtuous trait, its blind pursuit untethered from any frame of reference cannot prevent the world from burning.  It only allows the drivers of destruction to continue framing the debate.  
   Articles like these seed the debate for change that leads to the votes in Congress.  Working people everywhere are beginning to realize the drastic predicament our policies have created.  As that trend snowballs, the political tide will change, and good policy just might squeeze through the chutes of Congress.  Without any idea of what constitutes good policy, we're bunting, when the solutions to climate change require a swing for the fence.  

   Permalink

5. 

   ce1907 Posted 9:02 am
   31 Jan 2008

   Republicans will use working class fearto kill climate bills

   Permalink

6. 

   David Roberts Posted 9:18 am
   31 Jan 2008

   Yes,And auctioning rather than giving away permits is precisely a way to raise some revenue with which to offer the working class some benefits alongside the costs. It's the only way to create a system that can garner broad political support. Without auctioning, what you've got is a massive regressive tax.
   If Dems in Congress were pushing a massive regressive tax to fix the healthcare system, could any progressive in good conscience support the bill because they don't see votes for a better bill? Why view the political playing field as static like that? Conservatives don't.
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

7. 

   Sean Casten Posted 9:36 am
   31 Jan 2008

   Alan - I agree with almost everythingYou are absolutely right about the importance of auctioning credits, and make a good point about the innate regressivity of grandfathering emitters so that they can pass prices along to customers.
   However, I have one quibble.  There is an underlying assumption common to the entire carbon debate that adding a price on carbon = higher cost energy.  This is not necessarily so.  A regulatory model that provides a financial incentive to reduce carbon emissions is, at core a financial incentive to reduce fossil fuel combustion.  And reducing fossil fuel consumption per dollar of GDP is downright progressive, especially when energy prices are up so dramatically since 2000.  
   In some cases, this will come about directly from consumer action (e.g., if the incremental increase in fuel price convinces you to invest in a more efficient furnace, or thicker insulation, or CFLs that lower your long-term energy costs and give a nice payback on capital to boot).  In other cases, this will come about indirectly (e.g., the family who suddenly finds that their food/transportation/etc. is cheaper because the people they buy from were incentivized to reduce their fuel purchase.  But in all cases, less fuel use per unit of production leads to net savings across all groups.  Indeed, Arizona found that the net cost of lowering GHG emissions to meet their state targets (a fairly aggressive target, at that) would be negative12.74 per ton).  This is fairly typical, and for the same reason noted above: burning less fossil fuel saves money.

   Permalink

8. 

   bookerly Posted 10:10 am
   31 Jan 2008

   Mixed Feelings
   
      I have mixed feelings about auctions.  One of which is concerned with the mechanisms to put the money back in the hands of those who need in a timely fashion (taking money from poor people and returning it in 18 months or so is not very helpful).
       But this is clearly a step in the right direction.  Alan gets it.  Any change must include attention to social justice and fairness to succeed.
       Not just to pass Congress, but to pass Congress in a form which will not be hijacked by the giant energy sucking corporations and then succeed.  CE1907 fails to understand this.
       I understand the fear that we need to do something and fairly quickly.  But doing the wrong thing would cause more damage, we are running out of time to backtrack.
       Auctions are fine, but lets make sure the mechanism is in place to put the returns to use in a fair and timely manner (so far, we (Americans) don't have a very good record at doing this, a look at our ridiculous social welfare system is instructive.)
   patrick in Beijing

   Permalink

9. 

   ce1907 Posted 10:34 am
   31 Jan 2008

   false choice100 percent auction is better
   it is not one of the choices
   you can try to pass something less threatening to the established order, or you can do nothing
   those are your choices
   argue all you want, but show me your votes
   show me the votes
   show me the votes
   until you do, no one with power will take you seriously
   and do not be so sure that your arguments are so brilliant that the public must accept them once they understand
   people believe what they want to believe, and navigating politics means a lot more than policy.
   you have to navigate a lot of established prejudices and identities
   and you have to navigate a lot of myopic regional politics
   but do not worry too much about the hated Lieberman bill passing.  Most likely, no bill will pass
   You will help to make sure

   Permalink

10. 

    ids Posted 11:23 am
    31 Jan 2008

    Losers-WeinersPoor?  Half the world lives on $700/yr.  In the U.S., the poverty threshold is $10,000/yr.  It'd be nice to recognize it's a global problem, not because saving the world is something Americans can support unless it includes bombs, but because when asking someone to sacrifice it helps to see someone else suffering more, ya know, Schadenfreude.
    Perfect by Fred Holland
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al_8STEFrSY&feature=re ...

    Permalink

11. 

    bookerly Posted 12:49 pm
    31 Jan 2008

    Comparative Economics
    
       Dear IDS,
           You are correct when you compare the poor in other countries to the US poor in terms of absolute dollars.  But to speak in defense of the US poor, things are also much more expensive in the US.  Start with the cost of housing.  If you make $10,000 a year, there is a good chance that at least 6-8000 goes towards rent.  Toss in heat and electricity, add a little for food, and you may be running a deficit (depending on where you are).
           BTW, I'd love to see people (Americans) prepare a budget for someone making $10,000 a year in their locality.
           Being poor sucks anywhere.
    patrick in Beijing

    Permalink

12. 

    bfraser Posted 8:34 am
    01 Feb 2008

    Let's tryce1907 raises a very good point.  Since we want quick action, we may end up with something other than the best.  Here are the points that I brought up with my senators:
    
    
     GHG fees (aka Carbon tax) are better than Cap-and-Auction, which is much better than Cap-and-Grandfathering, which is much better than doing nothing.
     Please try to bring up legislation which is the most environmental possible to a vote, so we can determine who is voting against it and bring citizen pressure to bear.
     After bringing it to a vote (or as close to a vote as you can), be willing to move on Cap-and-Grandfather if that is the best you can do.
     If you do need to resort to Grandfathering, try to make it phase to Auctioning as quickly as possible (4 years or less?), or make it last only 2-3 years, so we can replace it with something better soon.
    
    
    bill
    
    

    Permalink

13. 

    ce1907 Posted 1:37 pm
    01 Feb 2008

    BillWhile motives vary
    I think there are a few conceits tucked into the Lieberman bill
    1.  make room for Republicans on the climate change bandwagon.  Make the need for action mainsteam; pull the teeth out of the worst rightwing demogoguery with the spectacle of moderate Republican supporters
    
    (the tradeoff is some cover for some Republicans, but this is the fastest way to make climate regulation consensus -- like CWA regs on sewer waste and raw industrial waste)
    
    
     create enough certainty that carbon will have some cost to establish the alternative energy industry and create economic incentives for more efficiency
     Along with 2, give some space to existing businesses (to not create -- or just be blamed -- for economic collapse) with clear incentives to shift business paradigms
    
    
    As you can see, the calculus is not what is the best policy, it is more what is the best that we can get immediately, and how can we encourage a suspicious business world to buy in to creating a new way of doing things
    The change needed is dramatic, but we need to get there through consensus, and the consensus must be built in good faith
    By the way, let me declare something surprising:  I am a very, very partisan Democrat, but I do not hate Republicans
    we must all hang together, or we will all hang separately

    Permalink