..."How to respond to people who want progressives to go soft" folder

David,

From where does your conviction come that auctioning all permits will benefit the working and middle class?  I come from this demographic that you say you wish to protect.  We know that emissions cuts will be more costly for some industries than others. What assurance can you give a typical working or middle class citizen that the cost of auctioned permits will not force the company they work for to lay them off, or that massive equity losses will not occur in the pension funds they are dependent upon for retirement?  Most working class people are far more susceptible to economic disruptions than their better off peers.

Are these not reasonable concerns for a working class person to have?  Are they unfounded?

You write that enviro activists pushed climate change to the political fore.

NOT!

Are you kidding?  Enviros are routinely ignored in Congress, and have been for decades.  In general, people do not vote or give money (for Green purposes) over enviro issues.

What pushed climate change to the political fore?

Business.  The same businesses that wanted to make a killing on cap and trade like they made in Europe.  And a few businesses that could see an advantage competitively with higher cost carbon (Nukes).  Plus, maybe a couple guys thought climate change was real.

PG&E has looked to cash in.  So AB32 happened in California.  And DiFi, that notorious Green, had a climate bill with Carper, that other notorious Green.

When did Congress pay attention?  When BUSINESS leaders showed up for the climate change hearings.

Al Gore gets a clap.  UN gets a clap.  But nothing would have perculated in Congress if business did not show up.

Smell the coffee.

Are these not reasonable concerns for a working class person to have?  Are they unfounded?

I can't respond for David, but as for your question, ya haveta realize that if we don't cut emissions, the economic effects may eventually be just as bad, if not worse, than any economic downsides from the emissions cuts.

And in addition to the economic downsides that would go with little/no emissions cuts, there's also the environmental, social, and humanitarian effects to consider (which would eventually end up bein' tied with the economic costs).

Trust me, most of us eco-types understand that you're worried 'bout your personal future and job in general, and how this might effect it, and we respect that.  However, we tend to look at the bigger picture as a whole on how this will effect society, the economy, and the environment in long term.

And thus, how it may effect the industry ya work in, and possibly even youself personally in the long term.

My question above about the economic effects of auctioning emissions permits under a cap system concerns Mr. Roberts rather strong assertion that working and middle class people will be far better off under an auction than under a system that distributes the available permits to companies.

Trust me, I'm 100% behind the need for a cap.  I am not at all convinced that the working and middle class would be better off with a pure auction system for the permits.

I have heard proposals for a blended system that would start by auctioning a small percentage of each year's permits and gradually increase that number over some period of time to help mitigate the economic disruptions.  That seems like a perfectly reasonable proposal to me.  I am genuinely curious how someone can be so confident about the right solution, when the economic consequences are so complicated.  We perhaps know that Europe's system of cap and trade can be improved upon, but jumping to a pure auction system would seem to have risks.  I would hope that those advocating for it have considered those risks.

Watch for a long post on that very subject tomorrow.

grist.org

OK, lovely.

And yet, many in the electorate, at the primary level, are not discouraged from considering "electability" as an important virtue of a candidate.

And, on the other hand, many in the electorate are strongly discouraged from saying or doing much in favor of such candidates as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, and even Mike Huckabee.

So, when is political "pushing" properly "our job," and when is it something we should cease from?

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

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.  

Setb,

I'm not sure if you were intending to address my question.  If so, or even if not, I'd reiterate that one of the real concerns of working and middle class people is job security.  It will do little good to have part of the increase in energy costs offset if the increased expenses for businesses has caused me to lose my job.

Yes, there are certain industries such as websites that may be low energy intensity and unlikely to have to cut expenses drastically to afford auctioned permits.  Yes, there will be some new jobs created in installing solar panels and retrofitting insulation in houses.  However, for someone middle aged and above that happens to be in a vulnerable industry, it often is extremely difficult to get these new jobs that usually go to younger workers.

I have not seen Peter Barnes' plan... do you know if he has addressed this concern?  I would hope that would be one thing you would want to know before endorsing a plan as "the best way forward".  It would seem that a pure permit auction scheme would have the greatest unpredictability for businesses versus either a distributed permit cap and trade or a simple carbon tax.

And to biodiversivist... As for the 40-hour work week... I'm not sure I see the economic similarities to this issue.  Not only that, I'm unaware of any regulation that stipulates a 40-hour week... I certainly have worked much longer hours on jobs.  Though I would certainly appreciate more explanation if there is some relevant historical experience that would shed light on the economic considerations of structuring a carbon abatement mechanism.

I fully agree that in the long run weaning the U.S. off fossil fuels could be good for the job situation.  For many, however, the prospect of potentially losing their current job mid life and having to compete with younger workers to get one of these new jobs, which may or may not be created locally, is discomforting.  As they say, a job in the hand is worth far more than a potential job.

Starting a cap system with all permits auctioned immediately puts a very high strain on many industries.  A further complication is that most people, at least environmentalists, believe that the developed countries must move first with caps before expecting developing countries to do the same.  Many companies simply would not be able to survive if they have to purchase all their permits and yet have to compete with companies in places like China that would not have this added expense.

And to biodiversivist... As for the 40-hour work week... I'm not sure I see the economic similarities to this issue.  Not only that, I'm unaware of any regulation that stipulates a 40-hour week

He's referin' to Europe.  Europe recently passed a set of regulations establishing 40-hour work weeks in many industries (with overtime increases afterwards).  Intially, many of those industries tried to stop the move, claiming that it would harm productivity, and result in layoffs.  After it went into effect however, studies showed that productivity had actually increased and there was little, if any, economic downturn followin' the change.