As I noted earlier today, Sen. Lieberman indicated that he'd be open to moving toward 100 percent auction of pollution permits under his and Sen. Warner's cap-and-trade proposal.
I called David McIntosh, Lieberman's counsel and legislative assistant for energy and the environment, to find out why this potentially tectonic shift has suddenly become a live option. He said:
The environmental community and Senators whose views are going to be important have effectively communicated to Sens. Lieberman and Warner that they want to see free allocations to emitters phased out over time and why they believe that is justified. Within the bounds of getting a bill moving, Sen. Lieberman for one is going to try to be responsive to those arguments.
Beneath the careful language here is, I think, quite a compliment to the green community. This is not an issue the public is engaged on, and it represents enormous possible giveaways to industry. It is a credit to green groups that they've communicated forcefully and coherently to legislators that auction is the way to go.
The question that remains is: if they're auctioned, what should be done with the revenue? The green community needs to come to a consensus on the question and communicate that just as forcefully. Just as many legislators are worried about a windfall of gov't revenue as are trying to get a sweet deal for constituent industries.
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Comments
View as Flat
NonprofitWatch Posted 8:45 am
20 Sep 2007
"they want to see free allocations to emitters phased out over time"
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org -
bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:54 am
20 Sep 2007
grist.org
Permalink
AndyFrankGO Posted 8:54 am
20 Sep 2007
Permalink
Billhook Posted 9:15 am
20 Sep 2007
"Senators whose views are going to be important"
will include some who are honestly appalled at the climate predicament we now face,
and who recognize that the Grandfathering of permits wholly undermines the efficacy of "Cap, Allocate & Trade."
The means of allocation is plainly crucial to that efficacy, and there must, surely, be senators who see this fact ?
That allocation by auction is merely a refined version of grandfathering seems hardly to be considered thus far, even here on Grist, which seems rather pathetic.
For example, what price per ton of CO2-permit can Texaco afford, when competing with say the village scale "Shenandoah Coppice Energy Company" ?
The alternative, the per capita allocation of tradeable CO2-permits known here as "Tradeable Carbon Quotas," can help to transcend this perverse outcome of permits' auctioning, in that people will, to an extent, favour more sustainable enterprises.
Is Grist really too defeatist even to discuss this option seriously ?
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 9:20 am
20 Sep 2007
Well I'd like to think that others aren't game for a phased in auction system
by the way,in case it's not been obvious,I don't hold much regard for the integrity or judgement of the leading enviros backing USCAP.
:)
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org -
bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
sindark Posted 5:30 am
21 Sep 2007
I would say:
Put 3/4 into an independently administered fund that produces near-term emission reductions that would not occur under Business-as-Usual.
Put 1/4 into an adapatation and emergency fund.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink