Comments Tony Kreindler has made

All else aside, a correction:

The Speaker said she wants to have a vote on cap and trade in the House this year -- before Copenhagen. That's 2009, not 2010.

See here.

www.edf.org

setb -

Can you clarify your first question? On the second, we'll be back with more on that, as well as TXU. On the last, check out the link in the last line of Fred's post for more on his comments on drilling, which have been taken out of context.

www.edf.org

CAA is an example

Wolverine -

The Clean Air Act is a great example of an environmental law that has been amended and improved over time to address emerging health threats. More on that here.

No bill is ever perfect -- but this one has the right framework to begin reducing emissions in a way that makes sense for the environment and the economy. It's time we got started.

www.edf.org

Rejoining

Thanks all. I'm going to work my way backwards to minimize my (and your) screen scrolling. GreenMom, you posted as I was typing these responses so forgive me, but more to come . . .

ce1907: Environmental Defense has long been on the frontlines of state climate action - we've worked across the country and across party lines to advance state-level emissions reduction commitments (including co-sponsoring and fighting to the nail-biting end for passage of AB 32), and we've been arguing in courtrooms from east to west to help secure a Clean Air Act waiver for the California clean cars program and the 17 other states that hope to adopt it.

We think the ability of states to set stronger-than-federal standards for global warming pollution should be preserved - just as it has been for other pollutants.  We also believe that we need an effective national climate policy, and we'll work with Congress to develop one that preserves state leadership while fostering an efficient carbon market.

Cunctator: We both agree that the Climate Security Act isn't the perfect bill. But is it a good bill, a strong start? We think so. It has an aggressive short-term emissions reduction target (more aggressive than other proposals in this Congress), cost-management provisions that don't compromise environmental goals (i.e. jettisoning the emissions cap), and a system of carrots and sticks to prompt action from developing countries.

We want to see tighter long-term targets in the bill. But as we've said before, it's important to get on the path to those long-term cuts before it becomes exponentially more difficult to achieve them.

David: Good question, and one that I will ask our Clean Air Act aficionados to weigh in on here.

Nick: As passed by committee, the bill only allocates 49 percent of allowances to regulated entities, and we get to full auction by 2031. There are a lot of good arguments for increasing the rate at which CSA moves to 100 percent auction, and there are a lot of good arguments for why that might not be achievable politically.

In the end though, without a cap on emissions, there are no allocations to make, no auctions to have, and no greenhouse gas reductions.  And that's what we're all working for here: reducing emissions.

www.environmentaldefense.org

The right focus

Clark,

Right on the money with focus on the need for certainty when it comes to climate policy.

What we know is how far we need to reduce emissions to have our best shot at stabilizing global temperatures; what we don't know is what price on carbon will drive emissions down that far. So we're faced with a choice: certainty of results, or certainty of costs.

If climate policy is going to be about the climate, the choice has to be results, and the best way to guarantee them is a cap. And with cap and trade, we can at least be certain about this when it comes to costs -- they will be as low as possible because companies can hunt for the cheapest reductions. On Why cap-and-trade is preferable to a carbon tax posted 1 year, 11 months ago 9 Responses