Comments setb has made

It strikes me that the best way to nip nukes in the bud would be to mandate extremely tough safety & anti-terrorism standards--while refusing public loan gurantees. 

This isn't really a Republican talking point. I know that's a convenient strawman to throw up, but it's a real concern people on the left have as well.  

Remember, the CBO report that everyone is quoting looks at 2020 because that's when the CBO figured the economy would have had time to adjust to the regulations. That's a long way off, a half-dozen Congressional cycles and before reductions really begin to ramp down.  

Maybe this is what we have to do to pass something (anything!), but I think there is a real danger of political backlash here. 

I just wish these that so many of these conversations weren't examples of modern jackass: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=modern+jackass

I mean it's only the most important bill for the future of our planet & economy...

That's not pointed at you Bill--you're a smart guy & I like your writing--I just would bet that only about .05% of the people pushing for passage of the bill (or against it) have read the actual bill. In general, 1200 page bills aren't democratic. 

I think Gar's main point was if you had read the bill--have you?

Can it really be considered an all out blitz when it includes the major caveat of strengthen? What if Congress don't strengthen it--then what?

Shouldn't the right question be whether or not ACES reduces climate pollution to the levels scientists say are necessary?  

The answer is a no & it's bad politics to boot.

100% auction and dividend has always been about politics first and foremost--how do we get the real reductions we need and make it last for the 30+years necessary.

Obviously, Waxman has decided to go with a scheme of buying votes through giving away permit. Does that help you pass a strong cap? The answer up until now has been no--and the evidence on ACES isn't promising. Once Congress starts giving away permits, they're picking winners & losers--and they're pissing people off. It may make the industries with friends on E & C happy--but everyone else will be angry. Now its just the AG folks saying "Where's mine?" tomorrow it could be retail, airlines, banking or construction--and there just isn't enough money to give away to everyone. And when they run out of allocations Congress gives away offsets--or screws consumers (voters). So you get a watered down bill that founders its way through Congress with enemies on all sides.  

Maybe it's just the way things need to get done--but, I'm concerned about what's going to happen when prices actually go up and Republicans demagogue the issue like we know they will. Nat can explain to the public how they're really getting 50% of the money back, but I think that will work about as well as explaining that offshore drilling wouldn't lower gas prices back in summer of '08.  

Umm...

Why does it have to be one?  The money will need to come from a combination of public and private sources (everybody gets this).  

Private: 10's of billions are already being invested in green tech & that's without a carbon cap or price.  Set a cap & the money will flow.    

Public:  Why think so small?  The money will need to go into housing, transportation, research, et. etc. etc. Why are we worried about being the first major government project that needs to payfor itself.

Finally, this is an argument that could only come from someone who grew up post-Reagan. Green investment is just that--an investment, something that, I think, will save the planet(!) and pay-off finacially for generations to come. Why in the world would we stop and figure out how exactly to pay as we go?  

Imagine if we had done that during the New Deal, WWII, Revolutionary War, Civil War...  

This is a big deal- think big.  On Where will the money for public investment come from? posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 10 Responses

Dividends

"Most of the revenue is better spent directly rewarding emission reductions."

Put away your policy hat for a minute and put on the political hat. The most important story on climate this week was what happened in Canada.

Gas has gone back down, but please try to remember the national freakout over $4 gas and how quickly people shoved aside their concerns about offshore oil drilling.    

20% will cover 20% of the increased costs on consumers and cover 20% of the voting public.

Obama has been campaigning on not raising anyone's taxes who makes under 1/4 million-- do you really think he's going to pass climate legislation in the middle of a recession before 2012 that could be flogged as a tax increase?

The only way this gets done before 2012 is through returning a huge chunk of the auction revenue, the lion's share or even 100%.On Obama muses on the connection between energy/climate and our other problems posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

Still sticking with this?

Saluki? Are you still excited about Palin? On Republicans revert to base-rallying strategy posted 1 year, 2 months ago 19 Responses

Exactly David

I find these people endlessly frustrating-- here's what I propose reporters ask each of these people:

1.  When will your idea begin to reduce carbon emissions? How much will they be reduced by?  

2.  How much will it cost? How do you propose to pay for it?  

But I'm not sure I've every seen or heard good answers to those questions from the Rayners or Schellenbergers of the world. But I could be wrong--please post links if they have.  On Wired passes along conventional wisdom on climate policy posted 1 year, 2 months ago 2 Responses

I wish

We could schedule a Van Jones v. Newt debate.  Make it happen Dave.On 9.27.08 is the green jobs national day of action; or, you could watch Newt on TV posted 1 year, 2 months ago 1 Response

This was awesome

The smiles on people's faces were priceless--any other cities doing something like this?   On New York City's inaugural Summer Streets event a big hit posted 1 year, 3 months ago 1 Response

EDF?

Seems like Tony (or Fred) is not going to answer my questions...

I'm only left to assume it's because they don't have an answer.
On EDF prez says we can't afford to wait for the ideal first step posted 1 year, 3 months ago 17 Responses

Clarified

How do you understand the difference between SO2 and CO2 as it pertains to policy?  

*  SO2 is significantly less ubiquitous than CO2 in the economy--and much less crucial. How do you need to adjust a policy designed to reduce a minor pollutant to reduce the major one?  On EDF prez says we can't afford to wait for the ideal first step posted 1 year, 4 months ago 17 Responses

Oil is like an anchor

This is close David- but I think it needs to be evn more simple-- Oil is bad.  

Oil is like an anchor On our economy and foriegn policy-- we need to break the chain and find real solutions.

It's time for enviro groups (and Presidential candidates) to repeat this over and over.  There is a side benefit that this will force McCain to appear as the "Oil Man" connecting him even more closely to Bush.  

  On An effective political response to the Republican push for drilling posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

Petulant child

Maybe this will help push him below 20%... On We're number one! posted 1 year, 4 months ago 8 Responses

Transportation?

Interesting.  How would a system like this deal with transportation? Through a gas tax? How would it impact efficiency?    

1 other (Cap v. Tax) point & 1 question:

• Tax proponents often cite the price volatility of the a cap (EU Market), without mentioning the obvious fixes (100% auction, no offramps, no free permits, cap upstream). A steadily declining upstream cap, done right, would provide price stability.

•  I've noticed this point made quite often: "Emission caps and performance standards are rarely if ever set at levels that represent true sustainability, and are generally biased toward extreme cost conservatism."  What makes you think a tax would be set at a level that represented true sustainability and not biased toward cost conservatism?  

  On A possible consensus perspective on the tax vs. cap debate posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Charles,

Quick questions:

• How would the tax be set? Would it be based at all on achieving some specific level of carbon reductions?

• What would those reductions be based on?

• Why is it better for politicians to set the carbon cost vs. the market & science?  

I'd like to hear more about how/why a steadily declining cap (say 2 percentage points/year) would create such volatility in price. I can't believe that we wouldn't be able to forecast carbon costs based of reduced carbon supply years ahead of time. Cap & Trade created price instability because of offsets, giving away of permits and offramps.  

Is it really that different pushing down supply vs. demand? On Hansen's message to the planet posted 1 year, 5 months ago 17 Responses

Tax v. Cap & Auction

The key here is that we need to price carbon--the mechanism is only important in so far as it's efficient, politically viable and can react to new information.

Because a Cap & Auction prices carbon by starting with necessary the carbon reductions than allowing the market to figure out the price, I think it's a better way.  

A tax allows the politicians to set the price to try to drive the necessary reductions-- I think it's unlikely that electeds could be trusted to year after year pass the necessary carbon tax increases.

My sense is that most people agree that either way is fine.  

  On Day five of the UN Dispatch-Grist collaboration posted 1 year, 5 months ago 21 Responses

Thank You!

Keep it up- we're getting closer. On The new testimony before Congress posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

What drives investment?

Joe-

Won't pricing carbon drive the rapid deployment of clean technologies while depressing the value of new drilling?  

 On Nature publishes my climate analysis and solution posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

This sounds right to me...

But wouldn't pricing carbon drive efficiency much more effectively than, say, CAFE?  I mean, look what $4 gas has done just in the last few months.  
On The case for fuel-agnostic efficiency posted 1 year, 5 months ago 21 Responses

take another look

You should probably take another look since you seem to miss what I think is the core of the idea- a descending cap on carbon is the most important, and surest, thing we can do to reduce emissions.  

Now, how do we make that cap politically viable enough to pass (since everyone understands that increasing costs is an unpopular political thing to do) and last through the dozens of elections and economic cycles that it has to.

I think protecting incomes is the best way to make the cap viable(as does Peter, Robert Reich, George Lakoff, McKibbon, etc).  

I think everyone agrees that investment is crucial- but not more crucial than guaranteeing reductions.On Peter Barnes' carbon policy proposal would not spur the economic changes we need posted 1 year, 5 months ago 19 Responses

Grow up

A Republican saying something doesn't make it a Republican talking point or even untrue. In fact, thoughtful people might point to it as a political reality that needs to be dealt with.  

The bottom-line is that Lieberman-Warner (Wait, they're both Republicans! The bill must be one big Republican talking point!) was bad policy, bad politics and never had a hope of passing.  It's time for a new direction, new thinking and a change in climate policy.  

The science debate is over, and the next battle is over costs. We must have an answer to Inhofe when he writes a WSJ OpEd calling L-W a tax on the poor or when the Chamber runs ads to scare people about costs.  

That answer can't just be spin--it needs to have a base in policy.  If it doesn't it probably won't pass or won't have the political legs to last through dozens of election & economic cycles.  

So why not stop the name calling and start looking for solutions that work?     On The silver-lining of Lieberman-Warner's demise posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Disagree Sean

Sean,

I have to say, I think it's you that is playing into the hands of the right.  Ignoring the realities that there will be short-term costs as we shift from a carbon-based economy to a new green economy is silly and will be fatal to any efforts to pass effective climate policy.  

We need to have real solutions to deal with this cost- not just wish it away. Otherwise, any climate policy we try to pass is going to get shot down by the 2nd coming of Harry & Louise or be blamed for the resulting increase in gas/energy/other costs and lead to the routing of our coming Dem majority. On Climate action advocates need a simple, compelling message on costs posted 1 year, 5 months ago 15 Responses

Duck McCain

Important environmental vote coming up? Duck!

Now there's a meme that can take off!  

Quack, quack, quack  

That guy is daffy.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

And so on. On Republicans for Environmental Protection lets McCain off the hook for missing important votes posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Strawman Alert!

Sean- You are completely misunderstanding the argument behind a cap, auction & dividend system to price carbon and reduce emissions.  I mean this-- "If you lose your job, do your costs suddenly fall to maintain a constant bank balance?" is just silly.  

Let's assume that demand for energy remains static or increases.  

By creating a cap, you're essentially reducing the supply of carbon.  Does reducing supply of something impact cost?  (Yes=Increase)

Of course increasing costs on carbon will increase the cost of carbon-based energy-- at least in the short-term (distributors first, and on down the line...)

And, of course, the distributors will pass those cost along to both businesses & consumers-- they've proven time & again that they'll pass these costs along.  In fact, it's even easier to do since energy costs are largely inelastic in the short term.   (that's the point of the dividend- it will cushion the economic impact).  

And of course a higher price on carbon based fuels will make non-carbon based fuels more attractive to investors.  

I think where the misunderstanding comes from is that you believe we must create incentives for polluters to pollute less. Instead, why not just mandate less polluting (cap) and allow the market sort it out?  The dividend is just there to cushion the impact on consumers (which creates the political viability).  

Repeat: It's the cap that causes the reductions.  On Economic naïvete on carbon prices posted 1 year, 7 months ago 3 Responses

Pricing Carbon Drives Investment

Cap & Dividend (or any other system that prices carbon) would drive investment.  

It wouldn't direct it to certain technologies--the market would do that--but would create huge amounts of investment in non-carbon based energy & efficiency.  Price carbon and the rest follows.  Public funds can then be used to supplement investment.On Trading efficiency for inevitability posted 1 year, 7 months ago 20 Responses

Really????

Sean you avoid the key point that a cap, auction then dividend system creates an increased cost on carbon fuels driven by an actual hard supply cap (and science).  

That will increase carbon costs--for both energy companies & consumers--that will drive private investment.  Maybe not yours, but not all investors will wait for public money to make investments since once we have a system that caps carbon emissions and prices carbon there will be a lot of money to be made for producing carbon-free energy & more efficient products.  Of course that will drive investment.  

That's not to say the the Gov't shouldn't invest in green technology or stop subsidizing dirty energy (that's obvious).  But why in the world would we want need to use the auction revenue for that?  And why in the world would we think politicians are going to magically stop funding clean coal, nuclear and corn-based ethanol and start funding real green solutions?      On Peter Barnes sprints through cap-and-dividend posted 1 year, 7 months ago 11 Responses

David, Every day is Earth Day

On An open letter to the nation's public relations professionals posted 1 year, 7 months ago 2 Responses

Carbon Clean-up Costs

If you return carbon auction revenues to the public, then most of the increased energy costs will be off-set.  Peter Barnes' "Cap & Dividend" plan is the best way forward on this front.  

 On Green advocates urged to be reasonable posted 1 year, 9 months ago 16 Responses

This sounds right to me...

The Skytrust/Cap and Dividend idea is so elegant and simple.  

It will be very easy to explain to the public.  On A look at the framing behind the last climate policy proposal posted 1 year, 10 months ago 18 Responses

Wrong way to go

The problem, of course, is that reducing our dependence on foriegn oil will do nothing to slow global warming.  

While we think it means increasing renewables-

For the right it means drilling in the arctic (sound familiar), off our coasts, removing regulations on coal mining, etc.

 On Global warming probably won't do the job. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses