F James Handley’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The Senate's balking at cap-and-trade (fourth time now). Much as Kerry and Boxer may try to re-slice the Waxman-Markey pie, there don't seem to be enough goodies (free allowances) to give away to win 60 votes. And many Senators (especially Dorgan and Corker) are concerned about creating a new carbon market to be gamed by Wall St. Developing countries aren't likely to sign on to caps that would hobble their development, but both India and China have indicated willingness to enact carbon fees that would drive down their carbon intensity, if others are also willing. It's time to think about another, simpler, more effective climate plan. The U.S. can and really must lead. If the U.S. enacted a transparent carbon fee, with harmonizing border adjustments (sanctioned by WTO), that would create incentives for all U.S. trading partners to enact their own carbon pricing systems -- failing to do so would mean forfeiting revenue. An international carbon price would drive emissions reductions where they can be made quickly and cost-effectively worldwide. See Imagine: A Harmonized, Global CO2 Tax.On Copenhagen panic is premature posted 2 days, 4 hours ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  In reply to Skitters: As soon as the U.S. enacted a carbon fee, if it included harmonizing border adjustments (sanctioned by WTO), that would create pressure for all U.S. trading partners to enact their own carbon pricing systems. See Imagine: A Harmonized, Global CO2 Tax.On Mr. President: Time to quit fibbing and spinning posted 3 days, 8 hours ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dave's (snide?) comment reminds me of a conversation I had last week with a Senate staffer. He suggested ("off the record") that the Senate might be able to pass a bill that repealed all of EPA's authority to regulate CO2 emissions, except the power to impose an upstream fee on carbon, perhaps within a Congressionally-specified price range. He emphasized that was not speaking for his Senator, but he speculated that something like that had a better chance than Kerry-Boxer of getting 60 votes and would be much more effective. In that way, and by ASKING Congress to work out a price mechanism for carbon, and to set aside the idea of trading, perhaps Obama could shift the debate. I sense that we're ready for a game-changer.On Mr. President: Time to quit fibbing and spinning posted 3 days, 8 hours ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I agree with McKibben's call for presidential leadership on climate. If President Obama wants to pass effective climate legislation maybe he should heed the advice of nearly every economist who's studied issue, including his Budget Director Peter Orszag. While at CBO, Orszag co-authored "Policy Options for Reduction of CO2 Emissions" which detailed the flaws of cap/trade and the advantages of a carbon fee. Or Obama could heed the advice of former Clinton political advisor Elaine Kamarck (now at Kennedy School) who points out that almost every country could enact and enforce a carbon tax, but few (if any) can manage a complex cap/trade system especially with offsets. She thinks a carbon tax with revenue-recycling to households is far more politically viable (not to mention effective) than cap/trade with offsets. The continued squabbling over who gets the free allowances under cap/trade shows one of its many flaws, both political and economic. They say "three strikes and you're out!" Cap/trade is on its fourth swing in the Senate. Obama should call it "out" and move on to a revenue-neutral carbon fee. Time's a-wast'in.On Mr. President: Time to quit fibbing and spinning posted 3 days, 13 hours ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  John Broder claims that Obama is being "hobbled" by the Senate. Really? If Obama wants to pass effective climate legislation maybe he should take the advice of his Budget director Peter Orszag who co-authored "Policy Options for Reduction of CO2 Emissions" which detailed the flaws of cap/trade and the advantages of a carbon fee. Or the advice of former Clinton advisor Elaine Kamarck (now at Kennedy School) who points out that almost every country could enact and enfoce a carbon tax, but few (if any) can manage a complex cap/trade system especially with offsets. The continued squabbling over who gets the free allowances under cap/trade shows one of its many flaws, both political and economic. They say "three strikes and you're out!" Cap/trade is on its fourth swing in the Senate. Obama should call it "out" and move on to a revenue-neutral carbon fee.On Delaying an international climate treaty: not as bad as it looks posted 4 days, 11 hours ago 26 Responses