David Roberts’s Posts

• EPA demands attorneys remove video critical of cap-and-trade 9

  Posted 1 day, 12 hours agoLaurie Williams and Allan Zabel are EPA attorneys who have taken up advocating against cap-and-trade on behalf of rebated carbon taxes, most recently in a Washington Post op-ed. They also posted a video to YouTube making many of the same arguments at somewhat greater length. Now the EPA has instructed them to take the video down by the close of business today, at pain of disciplinary action from EPA ethics officials, and to submit any future drafts to EPA officials before posting.

• In the clearing stands a Boxer ...

  What does recent Senate drama on the climate bill mean? Peak Boxer 5

  Posted 3 days, 3 hours agoThere's been some weird goings-on in Congress around the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill over the past few days. Why has the process been so darn messy? Lots of senators don't want to play ball with Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

• Signs point to 'no'

  Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline? 21

  Posted 4 days, 16 hours agoAl Gore's back in the public eye, promoting his new book, which naturally raises the question: which mainstream press outlet will be the first to do a vapid hit piece? We have our answer: The New York Times, which has run a truly absurd and embarrassing piece from John Broder. It casts about desperately seeking something sinister about the fact that Gore invests in clean energy technologies, argues David Roberts.

• That sucking sound you hear ...

  The real reason the climate bill is going to suck 29

  Posted 5 days, 15 hours agoAll the finger-pointing and recrimination aside, there's a pretty simple reason why whatever clean energy legislation the U.S. Congress produces is going to be weak.

• Worth 1,000 words, and several degrees Centigrade

  A scary photo for Halloween 1

  Posted 1 week agoEven back in 1891, they knew what was coming.

All Posts

David Roberts’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  What Hapa said. They're bound by idiotic balanced budget resolutions.On The real reason the climate bill is going to suck posted 5 days, 13 hours ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ah, I watched the testimony and I see what you're saying now, GER. Stone supports the direct rebates to low-income households in ACES. He is skeptical of the LDC allocations and thinks more should be shifted to direct rebates. I agree with rsmith02 that the prior use claim is absurd. Before Seattle implemented a littering fine, I could litter for free. Does that mean the city is obligated to pay me off when it wants to prevent littering?On Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Matt, thanks for the reply. A couple of points: "It’s worth noting, however, that Stone approves of the allocations in Waxman-Markey. It’s reasonable to think the senate will mimic, if not outright copy, that model." The Senate will probably mimic the House, but it's odd to say that Stone approves of W-M. He may think it's good enough, or the best political compromise possible, but the thrust of his paper and the rest of his work is clearly that the the goals of the LDC allocations would be better served by direct dividends. Secondly, Ellerman's point is that giving allowances away makes a political deal possible. I don't deny that -- it's in my piece. But that's not to say that the number of free allowances can't be reduced, or efforts to increase them blocked. One way to do that would be to point out how it hurts the middle class!On Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Hey Jesse -- wrote this late last night and perhaps didn't frame it adequately. I DON'T believe in the ivory tower notion that allowance distribution doesn't effect overall cost or environmental effectiveness. I would like to see most of the investments we need drawn from outside the C&T program, but as you say, it's not happening, so I'd love to see more allowances go to investment, tech transfer, efficiency, and reductions in non-capped sectors. I'm talking here about a narrow political fight: how to empower Senators who want to push back against efforts to have more allowances given for free to polluters (on the basis of cost concerns). This is a weapon in their arsenal: they can say, with the backing of Very Serious Economists, that more allowances to polluters means more money out of the pockets of the middle class. They should be fighting for other, better uses of allowance value too (I've always seen dividends as a second-best option, but better second-best than first-worst). But on this point, they shouldn't allow concerns about cost be used as cover for further enriching polluters. In other words, this post is about an instrumental argument.On Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Was thinking of using those trendy new teacup pigs next ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/teacup-pigs-video-the-lat_n_313271.htmlOn How CBO budget scoring devalues efficiency ... WITH PUPPIES! posted 3 weeks, 2 days ago 9 Responses