<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Thoughts on the 20th anniversary of James Hansen’s historic Congressional testimony]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by intimidavid http://www.grist.org/article/a-modern-day-cassandra/ Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:04:22 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-modern-day-cassandra/1 This is misleading

If congress were to heed Hansen's call accurately, they would support a "tax and dividend" policy, not a "cap and invest" program, as Markey seems to suggest with all his references to him.

Hansen wrote about his policy beliefs, recently, where 100% of the money goes to consumers:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080604_TaxAndDiv ...

Markey says this: "The consumer-focused iCAP reinvests over half the proceeds in American families through tax credits and rebates."

100% and "over half" are two completely different stories. I don't care how much goes to job training and other gov. ventures.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), Hansen doesn't really believe his policy has a chance in Washington. Andy Revkin at NYT Dot Earth spoke to him about it.

"Dr. Hansen told me that he considers Mr. Barnes a 'straight shooter' and that the strategy (cap and trade) is the only one that could survive in Washington and actually blunt human impact on the climate."

So, maybe Hansen would go for Markey's bill, but it doesn't seem to have a lot of support in Washington. Does it have any cosponsors? My Rep recently signed a GHG bill by Rep. Dogget out of Texas. It already has 77 cosponsors!

Compare the two, here:
Markey's: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6186/show
Dogget's:http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6316/show

]]> This is misleading

If congress were to heed Hansen's call accurately, they would support a "tax and dividend" policy, not a "cap and invest" program, as Markey seems to suggest with all his references to him.

Hansen wrote about his policy beliefs, recently, where 100% of the money goes to consumers:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080604_TaxAndDiv ...

Markey says this: "The consumer-focused iCAP reinvests over half the proceeds in American families through tax credits and rebates."

100% and "over half" are two completely different stories. I don't care how much goes to job training and other gov. ventures.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), Hansen doesn't really believe his policy has a chance in Washington. Andy Revkin at NYT Dot Earth spoke to him about it.

"Dr. Hansen told me that he considers Mr. Barnes a 'straight shooter' and that the strategy (cap and trade) is the only one that could survive in Washington and actually blunt human impact on the climate."

So, maybe Hansen would go for Markey's bill, but it doesn't seem to have a lot of support in Washington. Does it have any cosponsors? My Rep recently signed a GHG bill by Rep. Dogget out of Texas. It already has 77 cosponsors!

Compare the two, here:
Markey's: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6186/show
Dogget's:http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6316/show

]]> Comment #2 by setb http://www.grist.org/article/a-modern-day-cassandra/ Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:42:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-modern-day-cassandra/2 Congressman Markey,

Thanks for posting here Congressman!  

A question:

Why give only half the auction revenue back to the public?  

Why not do as Hansen suggests and return 100%?

I'm very concerned that any price spike will doom climate policy politically.  

Look at how quickly public opinion in Florida turned on offshore oil drilling with $4 gas.

   

]]> Congressman Markey,

Thanks for posting here Congressman!  

A question:

Why give only half the auction revenue back to the public?  

Why not do as Hansen suggests and return 100%?

I'm very concerned that any price spike will doom climate policy politically.  

Look at how quickly public opinion in Florida turned on offshore oil drilling with $4 gas.

   

]]>