Comments Bill Hewitt has made

Brians - The potential is indeed for carbon negative systems.  The IBI writes about this here.  You might also like to check out the Carbon-Negative Network.

Expensive?  The costs for collecting biomass, pyrolyzing it, and spreading the biochar can well be recouped by avoided costs for fertilizers and irrigation, from the increased productivity of the land, by using the synfuel and syngas, and by, at the end of the day, selling CER's on the carbon market. 

I wish I had some time right now to read Waxman's book.  I'm glad to have this distillation on the most important part to me as well, the Clean Air Act.  Henry Waxman was a real hero to those of us involved in the acid rain wars of the 1980s.  John Dingell was, of course, the villain. Waxman's coup d'etat last fall in dethroning Dingell as the chair of Energy & Commerce was a quantum leap in our efforts to create sane climate and energy legislation in this country.  I honestly don't think you can underestimate the importance of Waxman's role in all of this - and his genius, very much including his impeccable progressive instincts.

For an interesting history of the creation of the cap-and-trade component of the 1990 Acid Rain title to the Clean Air Act revision, see this great read from Richard Conniff in the most recent issue of Smithsonian.

Simple?  No.  But I want to note here a post from my blog on climate change for the Foreign Policy Association that references the work of Robert Stavins - one of those "Harvard economists."  He not only makes the whole thing slightly easier to grasp, but verifies Dave's analysis too:  “…the totals become 79.9% for consumers and public purposes versus 20.1% for private industry, or approximately 80% versus 20% - the opposite of the ‘80% free allowance corporate give-away’ featured in many press and blogosphere accounts. Moreover, because some of the allocations to private industry are - for better or for worse - conditional on recipients undertaking specific costly investments, such as investments in carbon capture and storage, part of the 20% free allocation to private industry should not be viewed as a windfall.”  (See The Wonk Zone.) 

At the end of the day, it's about getting the GHGs down.  I am very much in the group of those who'd like to see more cuts and sooner, but you need to also remember the stunning success of the 1990 Clean Air Act acid rain title in getting the precursor pollutants down and out much quicker and more cheaply than even the whiz kids at EDF thought possible.

Big John

My view of this epic confrontation goes back to the mid-1980's and Dingell's persistent opposition to an acid rain title.  He said then that it would jeopardize jobs.  That's not how it worked out.  The single-biggest contributor to members of Congress in one of those years was "Citizens for the Sensible Control of Acid Rain" - an industry front.  That the K Street crowd are out in force now is testament to the fear being engendered by the specter of a Waxman chairmanship.  Frank O'Donnell pretty much hits every nail right on the head here.  A Waxman chairmanship would really enhance our efforts to enact strong legislation - on renewables, on climate change, and, quite frankly, on green jobs - and much sooner rather than later.  On Why polluter lobbyists are rallying to protect 'Tailpipe Johnny' posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

Opportunity Knockin'

We're in an economic crisis of considerable proportions.  You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to know that.  But no less an authority than Nicholas Stern - of the Stern Review - says we should seize the opportunity to make our societies more energy efficient and cleaner.  This downturn can be an opportunity to create jobs.  See also my post "The Economic Crisis - and Opportunity" here:  http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/On The whole economy needs to be green collar posted 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Response

Coal Takes Some Lumps ...

... was the title of my post from February at my blog on climate change for the Foreign Policy Association.  The chronology here is most useful.On King Coal's year of rejection by banks, judges, and a lot of other folks posted 1 year, 8 months ago 3 Responses

Missed Opportunity!

If London, Singapore and Stockholm can make this work, and beautifully, why in the world can't New York City?  I've blogged on this today and several times before at the Foreign Policy Association's Climate Change".  

There's been a lot of comment too, let me assure you, on the "NY Times" City Room blog and elsewhere.  On Dead posted 2 years, 4 months ago 4 Responses