Complementary Policies

One step forward, several back

The Kerry-Boxer bill is not “more ambitious” than Waxman-Markey 2
Posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago I'm sure Steve Mufson and Juliet Eilperin didn't choose the headline, but whoever did, I think it's a real mistake to refer to the Kerry-Boxer bill as "a bit more ambitious" than its Waxman-Markey counterpart in the House. This became conventional wisdom almost immediately, but it seems to me both wrong and pernicious -- the more Kerry-Boxer is seen as a leftward move from the House bill, the more senators who want to be seen as moderate will want to be seen hacking it down.
Breaking: saving the world is affordable

CBO: Waxman-Markey pollution cuts cost little 0
Posted 5 months ago
Opponents of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, are acting like out-of-control auctioneers. They're trying to defeat the bill by raising cost estimates for the bill's clean-energy and global warming pollution reduction programs. But their wild estimates have been based on either perversions or distortions of independent government and university studies, or are partisan studies with rigged assumptions designed to produce outlandish estimates.

The Congressional Budget Office announced on Friday that the average American household would spend only a very modest amount each year to reduce global warming pollution under H.R. 2454. This independent analysis determined “that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household.” This is $3.36 per week—about the cost of one pound of 93 percent lean ground beef.

And the poorest 20 percent of households—those with incomes under $20,292 in 2007— “would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020,” according to the CBO.
Wait, what bill did you mean?

CBO: Household costs under Waxman-Markey likely much lower than report reflects 1
Posted 5 months, 1 week ago
Last Friday, the Congressional Budget Office answered some questions from Sen. John Kerry about its much-discussed report (PDF) on the costs of cap-and-trade.

You'll recall the report's principle conclusion: a cap-and-trade program would reduce the deficit over the next decade. Despite that positive outcome, the report contained some scary numbers, like the fact that the program would cost the average household $1,600 a year. Republicans have been playing such numbers for all they're worth.

CBO director Doug Elmendorf makes clear to Kerry that the net cost to households under the Waxman-Markey bill will likely be much lower than even the modest estimate in the CBO report.
Pearlstein Harbor

Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein gets climate bill wrong 2
Posted 6 months ago
In a laudable attempt to draw more elite media attention to the Waxman-Markey bill -- which, like all things "environmental," has not exactly been a preoccupation of the political cable/blog/op-ed axis -- Steven Pearlstein makes a hash of a few important facts.
Should be called Jekyll-Hyde

Waxman-Markey bill would do more for climate without cap-and-trade provision 10
Posted 6 months ago
Thanks to downstream permitting, offsets, and permit giveaways, the Waxman-Markey bill is a net loss for the climate.
'Round the hamster wheel again

Cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax: a bird in hand is worth two on Alpha Centauri 8
Posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago
The endless, fruitless debate over carbon pricing policies is back again. Herein, I settle it once and for all. Ahem.
How to take a complement

Why mandate renewables if we already have a cap on CO2? 7
Posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago
Some folks wonder why we need a national Renewable Portfolio Standard if we already have a declining cap on carbon. Forthwith, an answer.