Chris@CarrotsandSticks’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Great article, I think the under lying problem is that an objective cost benefit analysis of new technology is inherently murky. The reality is that technological innovation is sometimes 1 step forward, 2 steps back, or that the economic concerns in up being more important to the utility of new technologies. But that just doesn't translate to a good book cover and you end having to ignore legitimate research that says the reality innovation X didn't really move us forward.On Michael Specter's new book 'Denialism' misses its targets posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago 49 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  During the Tuesday's EPW hearing with Steven Chu, Lisa Jackson, Ray LaHood, and crew not a single non-corporate lobbyist made it through the public line. One activist told me she thought 300 people were in the line. http://wp.me/pv6hY-lx We were talking with the EPW staff as the hearing was closing down they actually mentioned the Grass Suits squad being absent. Would have been nice they were there to ask Chu questions after the hearing.On Grass people invade Congress as Senate hearings wrap up posted 1 month ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Great post. This type issue is going to come up for lots of proposed reforms and unless people are prepared it's going to impede good policy that could be enacted.On How CBO budget scoring devalues efficiency ... WITH PUPPIES! posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  OK, I was unaware of the thoroughness of the denial by Orzag.

  Main point is there is no way the White House and EPA has been pursuing this as rigorously as they could. In the spring Lisa Jackson was weighing benefits of regulation saying,

  ""We make regulations smartly to address the threats in the best way possible and with an eye to understanding we don't want to unduly effect those who can least afford to pay," she said." The regulatory process allows us the opportunity to make those decisions and to do it but we're not at that point yet."

  She didn't sound that different in her more recent comments. The administration line that Congressional action is preferable, which is understandable, but it needs to be we're committed to reduce carbon emission no matter what Congress does. There's a moral imperative and it's not reflected in her comments.

  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22434.html#ixzz0PxmAxbSk

   

  On Could Waxman and Markey have used the EPA threat more effectively? posted 2 months, 4 weeks ago 28 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  OMB criticized the EPA over the endangerment finding. Usually when OMB criticizes an agency it's interpreted as an action taken at the behest of the White House.

  The silence coming EPA and the White House regarding carbon regulation is very unsettling. They could have let people know they're moving forward, but they haven't.

   

  On Could Waxman and Markey have used the EPA threat more effectively? posted 2 months, 4 weeks ago 28 Responses