Cap and Fade
| Tue Nov. 4, 2008 8:10 AM PST
CAP AND FADE....Matt Yglesias on media misconduct:
I don't, for example, think I ever saw a television network or mass-media publication provide a cogent explanation of the differences between Barack Obama's climate change proposal and John McCain's climate change proposal even though the proposals contained some important differences. I have no idea whether this was attributable to "bias" or even how I would know. Nor am I sure which candidate would benefit from exploring this question. I am, however, sure that I've several times seen their plans described as being the same on the grounds that they're both "cap and trade" plans. That's false. Does the habit of saying it reflect bias? And bias toward whom?
The biggest difference between the two cap-and-trade plans, of course, is that Obama seems to actually believe in his proposal whereas McCain pretty plainly doesn't. For him, it's just window dressing that would almost certainly have been forgotten as soon as he got in office.
But how do you get that across? I'm pretty sure I'm right about this, but I certainly can't prove it. And any straight news reporters who took my line would (rightfully) be accused of massive bias. They could work around this by quoting other people on McCain's priorities and making clear that the GOP base hates cap-and-trade and would fight it, and then hoping that readers got the point. But maybe readers would and maybe they wouldn't. And if they didn't, the story would be fundamentally flawed.
But there's also another problem: on policy issues, the media tends to follow the campaigns. And neither campaign talked about cap-and-trade much. In McCain's case, I assume it's because Republicans hate cap-and-trade and he really didn't want to remind them that he supports it. In Obama's case, I assume it's because cap-and-trade would raise the price of energy and that's not exactly a winning campaign plank during a summer in which gasoline prices broke four bucks. So for different reasons they both kept quiet about it, and since they weren't attacking each other over cap-and-trade, the media ignored it too.
Which is kinda too bad because it had all the elements of an epic battle. It really is true that Obama's version of cap-and-trade amounts to a tax increase, and that would have been an issue right in McCain's share-the-wealth-tax-raising-socialist wheelhouse. Conversely, McCain's version of cap-and-trade really would have provided enormous windfall profits to coal plants and other carbon emitters (explanation here), and that would been right in Obama's fat-cat-more-of-the-same wheelhouse. It could have been a great fight.
Instead we got Joe the Plumber and Obama the terrorist lover. Oh well. We'll do better next time, right?
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
CNN had a half-good explanation of the two plans. I don't think it mentioned "cap and trade" by name, and it didn't get as far as the auction/giveaway difference, but it did say that even the McCain campaign claims that they would reduce CO2 by around 25% less than Hon. Sen. Obama's plan. Even so, I found it head a shoulders above other TV treatments of the issue (non-PBS, that is).
The thing that I wish would have been covered, is Senator McCain's harping on an increased role for nuclear power. For one thing, the type of power plants used in the nuclear navy are completely different?and far less ?than those that are used in large generators. For another, they are mammothly expensive both to build and to insure and then to decommission (most of this would need to be subsidized). For another thing, I'm not sure how much domestic uranium we have in the US, so it might be a way of substituting one dependance for another. There is also, of course, the environmental... safe... blah blah blah.
Both candidates spouted the "clean" coal fantasy, so I guess there was no controversy to report there (unless the fact that both leading candidates assumed the existence of patent nonsense as an integral part of there policy proposals as a controversial topic), but I found it disappointing nonetheless.
CNN had a half-good explanation of the two plans. I don't think it mentioned "cap and trade" by name, and it didn't get as far as the auction/giveaway difference, but it did say that even the McCain campaign claims that they would reduce CO2 by around 25% less than Hon. Sen. Obama's plan. Even so, I found it head a shoulders above other TV treatments of the issue (non-PBS, that is).
The thing that I wish would have been covered, is Senator McCain's harping on an increased role for nuclear power. For one thing, the type of power plants used in the nuclear navy are completely different?and far less ?than those that are used in large generators. For another, they are mammothly expensive both to build and to insure and then to decommission (most of this would need to be subsidized). For another thing, I'm not sure how much domestic uranium we have in the US, so it might be a way of substituting one dependance for another. There is also, of course, the environmental... safe... blah blah blah.
Both candidates spouted the "clean" coal fantasy, so I guess there was no controversy to report there (unless the fact that both leading candidates assumed the existence of patent nonsense as an integral part of there policy proposals as a controversial topic), but I found it disappointing nonetheless.
Oh well. We'll do better next time, right?
Only if the next four years involves a massive investment in our school system and a real change in the attitudes of Americans toward education. Otherwise, Joe Half-a-dozen-pack would rather think about the "common man" than get a headache thinking about math or science.
The biggest difference between the two cap-and-trade plans, of course, is that Obama seems to actually believe in his proposal whereas McCain pretty plainly doesn't. For him, it's just window dressing that would almost certainly have been forgotten as soon as he got in office.
I think that's right. Of course, let's not forget that cap and trade is a completely stupid idea, and change we want would be for a leader who could get a carbon tax passed.
We've discussed this before and cap and trade does have your blogger shill of approval.
Obama's version of cap-and-trade amounts to a tax increase
That's what made it a non-starter for Obama in a campaign like this. Hell, that was the only issue McCain was getting traction on -- that Obama would raise taxes. Why give him more ammunition?
your comment that any reporter who reported the obvious fact that McCain doesn't care about cap and trade would rightly be accused of bias is weird. You then say a reporter could "work around this" by doing what surely constitutes accurate reporting. isn't the point that reporting should not just report a part of the story, but the whole story - including in this case all the reasons why you know that McCain in fact is not serious about this?
"bias" in the sciences means falsifying evidence, ignoring contrary evidence -- in some fashion cooking the books. ought it not mean the same thing in journalism? the way you use it you seem to feel that it's synonymous with "having a point of view." surely it isn't.
What is far far worse is that the media won't call lies lies. Started with W's lies about his tax cuts ("by far the vast majority..."), and continued on....
Corporate media just reports what the Repubs say / fits the narrative.
Christopher M wrote: "Please, can't we just let this one ride for 8 years?"
No, because according to the best current climate science, human emissions of CO2 must peak and then begin a rapid decline within less than 8 years if we are to have any hope of preventing the worst, most catastrophic effects of unmitigated global warming and climate change. And in recent years, emissions have not only been increasing every year, but increasing at an accelerating rate.
Anthropogenic global warming is a an urgent existential threat to human civilization, and even to the survival of the human species. There is no more important issue facing the next president -- if we don't deal with global warming than everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Obama seems to understand this. McCain clearly does not.
Obama has talked about doing the right things: huge increases in energy efficiency, tax credits and other incentives for rapid deployment of wind and solar technologies, a next-generation "smart" electrical grid optimized for distributed renewable energy generation. I hope that he and a Democratic Congress will aggressively follow through on these action items.
Obama has also talked about some stupid, wrong-headed things: "clean coal" and "safe nuclear", neither of which exist or are likely to ever exist except as industry propaganda campaigns. Hopefully, this was campaign lip-service on Obama's part (he's made comments that suggest that is the case) and he won't squander any time or money on these wasteful, dangerous, toxic, costly, ineffective technologies.
Cap-and-trade falls somewhere in the middle. We do need to force the energy markets to reflect the full cost of fossil fuels -- if that's done, they are already not economically competitive with clean renewable energy in many cases. A straightforward carbon tax is probably a better, more effective, easier and less costly approach to doing that than cap-and-trade.
But cap-and-trade does have the merit of actually placing a cap on emissions, and if the cap is set low enough and reduced quickly enough, and if the permits are 100 percent auctioned with no giveaways to existing polluters, etc., then cap-and-trade could be an effective tool for reducing emissions.
Re: Jerry & Cap and Trade
Actually a cap and trade system mixed with a type of tax is preferable to just one or the other. Cap and trade is useful (and effective if the SO2 market int he U.S. is any indication) in terms of large stationary emissions sources like power plants. It creates market incentives for shutting down less efficient plants and shifting resources to less carbon intensive power sources. I believe this can also be applied to agricultural emissions, though they might need ot be in a sperate pool of credits.
Taxes would be effective for carbon emissions that are mobile and dispersed (mainly transportation) since you would be linking the tax to the ultimate source of the carbon: fuel. That way emissions are still having the externalities built into the price, but extensive monitoring of actual emissions are not needed (nor would they be cost effective).
The important part is structuring and executing the system. Europe screwed up by granting way to many credits to favored industries and businesses, causing the carbon price to tank. I believe that in the U.S., SO2 and NOx markets can serve as a beneficial guide to structuring and regulating carbon markets.
With a cap-and-trade auction, the price will depend upon the scarcity (or lack thereof) of the carbon permits. Assuming we don't lower the limits to reflect the currently reduced economic activity, the first couple of years the auction price would be expected to be pretty low.
McCain had got his maverick creds in large part by being the only prominent Republican wanting to do something about AGW (except ignoring it, or charging the science establishment with fraud). Of course since he started making big compromises in order to keep his base, it just doesn't seem realistic to believe he'd do anything substantial on this issue.
Obama the terrorist lover
I read this as 'Obama the terrorist liver' & was wondering when I could score some of that Hezbollah brand goat foie gras.
(& it wouldn't be a bad idea for the Islamists to finance themselves in food sales. Why, Don Vito was an olive oi importer!)
CNN had a half-good explanation of the two plans. I don't think it mentioned "cap and trade" by name, and it didn't get as far as the auction/giveaway difference, but it did say that even the McCain campaign claims that they would reduce CO2 by around 25% less than Hon. Sen. Obama's plan. Even so, I found it head a shoulders above other TV treatments of the issue (non-PBS, that is).
The thing that I wish would have been covered, is Senator McCain's harping on an increased role for nuclear power. For one thing, the type of power plants used in the nuclear navy are completely differentand far less than those that are used in large generators. For another, they are mammothly expensive both to build and to insure and then to decommission (most of this would need to be subsidized). For another thing, I'm not sure how much domestic uranium we have in the US, so it might be a way of substituting one dependance for another. There is also, of course, the environmental... safe... blah blah blah.
Both candidates spouted the "clean" coal fantasy, so I guess there was no controversy to report there (unless the fact that both leading candidates assumed the existence of patent nonsense as an integral part of there policy proposals as a controversial topic), but I found it disappointing nonetheless.
