Comments on: Cap-and-trade hangover

By: John

John — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:41:45 +0000

It doesn’t matter what the W-M bill achieves in the way of CO2 reduction. Nor does it matter what China and India do to reduce CO2. The bill did achieve it’s primary goal of laying a foundation for taxing the US economy into poverty.
As the next decade begins and the normal solar cycle continues with at least two more decades of global cooling, all of the credit will be given to the W-M bill, and the taxes will be ratcheted up to the next level.
By 2020 we should be freezing in the dark while the Chinese and Indians enjoy the prosperity and military strength which was once ours. Way to go Greenies.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Sun, 24 May 2009 11:12:10 +0000

Tom, there’s a vast amount missing from your analysis (no surprise consdering the source of much of it). For example, while coal will be immune to broad additional regulation under the Clean Air Act, that says nothing about the Clean Water Act, noting that the process to regulate CO2 under the latter is already underway. Re the W-M offsets, note that their utilization will depend on regulations that have yet to be written. These illustrate the broader point, which is that W-M mostly just passes the ball to Obama but serves the valuable function of providing him with political cover. Of course this begs the question of just how much Obama thinks is necessary and is willing to do, for which we’ll have to wait and see.

The key political lever going forward remains a U.S.-China deal, noting that Nancy Pelosi is in China right now talking to them about climate. Interesting timing, yes?

By: New MIT study: Climate roulette odds much worse than thought, "increases the urgency for significant policy action" - TT`s Lost in Tokyo

Fri, 22 May 2009 14:33:23 +0000

[...] bill that made it out of committee the other day. The dissatisfaction was exemplified by this post by environmental journailst Tom [...]

By: Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman — Thu, 21 May 2009 21:46:59 +0000

Aaron: The supporters of climate legislation could have done what Keith Kloor suggests above — namely waited until they had a better hand. And there’s a good chance that they would have been dealt a better hand a year or so down the road. That’s because the EPA was getting ready to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. That presumably would have come with no lucrative freebies for industry, and many fewer loopholes. Once the EPA started regulating greenhouse gases, the Waxmans and Markeys of Congress might have been able to drive a harder bargain.

Of course we also need a major clean energy R&D program, and Obama was banking on revenue from cap and trade to help pay for that. With fewer loopholes and freebies presumably there would have been more revenue available.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:45:26 +0000

I have mixed feelings about the bill. On the one hand I think we need legislation in place ASAP which can later be amended to tighten restrictions and close loopholes. I do realize that in itself, may not be an easy thing to get passed. On the other hand I think that cap and trade like you stated, gives serious loopholes to the largest emitters. I don’t want legislation that just gives the american people the idea we are reducing our emissions when we actually we are not.

Oh, what to do….

By: Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:48:26 +0000

Tom,

As I’ve written elsewhere, the most compelling rationale for the Waxman-Markey bill is faith-based. Hardcore advocates now basically say that any bill is better than no bill at all and that the U.S has to take something to Copenhagen.

The question I keep asking: what if the bill gets even worse (esp when it goes for reconciliation with the Senate) and it reeks so bad you wouldn’t want to wrap your fish in it? That should smell great at Copenhagen, ay?

I think WM advocates are boxing themselves in a corner when they argue that this legislation represents the best and last chance for the U.S. to act on global warming. It wasn’t too long ago that Joe Romm was saying that it wouldn’t bother him in the least if Congress took another year to get a better bill. Presumably others in his camp felt the same. So why the zero sum attitude all of a sudden?

I have a decent understanding of politics and recognize the need to play the hand your dealt with, as others have argued. But a good poker player also recognizes a good hand when he has one and folds when he doesn’t.

WM advocates: you want a better chance at a bigger greenhouse gas reduction payoff? Know when to fold because there will be another round to play.