Economic Justice

The propitiously populist politics of permits

Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware 17
Posted 1 month ago When Kerry and Boxer introduced their clean energy bill earlier this month, it contained a huge gap: it said almost nothing about the allocation of pollution allowances under the cap-and-tr... er, pollution reduction and investment program. The reason for the omission is simple: Doling out what is effectively a huge new pot of money is a subject of considerable interest to many senators, and it's expected to help bring some recalcitrant Democrats on board. The Energy & Natural Resources Committee, under Jeff Bingaman, is holding a hearing on the subject today.
EPA: Waxman-Markey will lower electricity bills 0
Posted 5 months ago
The main argument conservatives and big oil and coal companies use against the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is that it would cripple American households with a crushing energy tax. To make that claim, they have distorted cost estimates from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and conducted their own biased studies. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency obliterated these phony numbers with the release of its economic analysis of H.R. 2454. The EPA estimated the bill would actually lower household electricity bills
Coal is the enemy of West Virginia 3
Posted 5 months ago
I wrote a slightly snotty post about West Virginia recently, making the point that dependence on coal has produced more misery than benefit for West Virginians. And now there's empirical data to back that up.
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.
American Clean Energy and Security Act will drive clean energy investments

News flash: More jobs and lower energy costs good for low-income Americans 0
Posted 5 months ago
TO: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Heritage Foundation and other industry groups predicting the end of life as we know if America takes action on climate change

FROM: Natural Resources Defense Council, Political Economic Research Institute/University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Green for All and the Center For American Progress

Subject: Inconvenient New Study Debunks Your Scare Tactics about the American Clean Energy and Security Act

It's time to face facts. You are just wrong when you forecast massive job losses, economic dislocation and harm to low-income Americans if the U.S. takes action on energy/green jobs issues. Contrary to what you've been suggesting, it turns out that "down is not up" and "night is not day": More green jobs resulting from tackling climate change is a good thing for America - including lower-income households.
Poor design creates zero sum game

Waxman-Markey giveaways pit consumer protection against climate protection 3
Posted 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Waxman-Markey supposedly requires a large percent of the savings from free permits to be passed along to consumers. The intent is that they act as protection against price increases rather than a source of profits for large companies. Unfortunately, to the extent this works, it is likely to dampen the price signals that are supposed to help emissions. Equally unfortunately, these provisions are much harder to enforce than appears at first glance.
What he means when he says 'my friends'

McCain wants a climate policy that benefits the rich 13
Posted 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Don't be misled by the rhetoric: John McCain is advocating for a system that primarily benefits the very wealthy.