Cap and Trade
| Wed Apr. 1, 2009 11:51 AM PDT
The Waxman-Markey climate bill was released yesterday, and if Joe Romm gives it a B+ I'm loathe to be pessimistic about it. But I am. It's true that the bill's targets for CO2 reduction are a little more aggressive than the ones Barack Obama campaigned on, but it also includes two provisions that are pretty discouraging. First, their cap-and-trade program allows a lot of offsets: two billion tons in all, which allows companies to pollute away as long as they "offset" their carbon emissions somewhere else. In theory, this is fine, but in practice it's an invitation to abuse, substituting purely fictional reductions for real ones. Second, it allocates a portion of the emission credits directly to affected industries instead of auctioning 100% of them. This is yet another invitation to abuse.
It's possible, of course, that both of these things can be beaten into submission with the proper oversight and regulation. But what are the odds? Ezra Klein anticipates my reaction here:
It's possible, of course, that both of these things can be beaten into submission with the proper oversight and regulation. But what are the odds? Ezra Klein anticipates my reaction here:
What concerns me is that it's not clear how it gets better. Waxman and Markey probably represent the leftmost edge of the possible. They're aggressively liberal, terrifically informed legislators who get the moral urgency of climate change
and possess the intellectual firepower to grasp the necessary scale of the response. If this is as far as they felt able to go on an opening bid, it's hard to see the legislative pathway that strengthens, rather than weakens, the legislation.
A bill that started out with no offsets and no allocation might eventually end up with offsets and allocation. But what happens to a bill that caves in on these issues right at the start? It gets even worse as it wends its way through the sausage factory, that's what.
As Ezra says, Markey and Waxman are as good as they come on this stuff, and if they don't believe that a clean bill stands a chance even as an opening bid, they're probably right. And God knows, making the perfect the enemy of the good and getting nothing done at all is practically a liberal art form. Passing this bill in some form or another is certainly way better than passing nothing.
But still. It's hard not to be a little let down by this. If this is the best we can do, Bangladesh better get used to being a permanent swamp.
UPDATE: Dave Roberts notes that this is a b-i-i-i-i-g bill, combining a potentially unpopular cap-and-trade program with a tremendous amount of other stuff: "The fact is, doing these pieces separately would mean three, four, possibly five bruising legislative battles, culminating in a battle over cap-and-trade that, in my estimation, simply can't be won on its own in this Senate....So they've decided, uncharacteristically for Democrats, to double down. They are piling all this stuff into one big-ticket, high-profile, must-pass bill....There is now a single point of focus, a put-up-or-shut-up moment. Anyone who wants to transition to a green economy or get the country off foreign oil or prevent global warming knows what to get behind. If nothing else, there will be no doubt by next year whether we're serious about this sh*t."
True, that. My reservations aside, this bill is the best thing we've seen on the energy front in a long, long time. I just wish it were even better, that's all. A guy can dream, can't he?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
At least it won't be a swing state anymore
Submitted by Yellow Dog on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 12:14 PM PDT.
Bangladesh better get used to being a permanent swamp.
Everything south of Orlando, east of the Appalachians, West of the Cascades and 50 miles either side of the Mississippi, you mean.
Yep.
Submitted by Russell (not verified) on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 12:28 PM PDT.
Well, I think Fareed Zakaria got it right about this awhile ago. And Kim Stanley Robinson as well. There is basically no chance we're going to do anything meaningful about global warming IMHO. We just don't have the collective willpower as a species. Get ready for a massive die-off.
Gee, you mean that
Submitted by MaynardHandley on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 1:05 PM PDT.
Gee, you mean that cap-and-trade turned out to be a massive boondoggle, just as SOME OF US PREDICTED???
Gee, you mean that, unlike the magical fairy world inhabited by economists, in the real world a carbon tax is NOT the same thing as a cap-and-trade? Carbon tax is looking pretty good now, isn't it? And it could have been phased in with matching offsets in other taxes to be revenue neutral. The Republicans would complain, but they will complain about anything, so who the fsck cares.
For my next prediction of obvious things that the CW would rather ignore, let me make the startling claim that *the earth is freaking overpopulated*!!! We can start to at least do what we can to reduce the problem right now, eg at the very least destroy the web of tax and labor benefits that make having children easier. Or we can sit around pretending there is no problem, pretending that science magic or god will save us, repeating the various talking point bullshit on this subject from left and right (eg with bicycles and everyone eating tofu the world can just keep growing its population).
But, of course, just like climate, nothing will happen. You're a bunch of damn idiots, the lot of you --- stupid stupid morons.
Maynard: In which alternate
Submitted by Jasper on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 6:45 PM PDT.
Maynard: In which alternate universe is something called a "tax" easier to enact than something with the seemingly innocuous name "cap and trade?" I find it overwhelmingly likely that an explicit carbon tax would be significantly more difficult to pass than cap/trade. In case you haven't noticed, American politicians tend to be skittish about voting for legislation that directly increases taxation. Moreover, there's the problem of raising said tax over time to attain the desired result -- which sets the stage for an arduous, politically difficult, multi-decade, multi-vote process to get the tax to where you need it to be for the desired effects.
Mind you I don't deny that a straight carbon tax has its advantages over cap and trade. The problem is such a tax also carries disadvantages compared to cap and trade -- largely in the area of politics. At the end of the day even the most efficient and well-designed public policies don't do us much good if we can't get them through Congress.
Cap and Trade or a carbon
Submitted by anon (not verified) on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 1:16 PM PDT.
Cap and Trade or a carbon tax are probably doomed to failure unless a popular, charismatic leader was there to support it, carefully explaining to the American people why a tax increase during a depression is a good thing, explaining how we subsidize oil costs with high defense spending and trade deficits and pollution cleanup and increased health costs.
If only there were such a popular charismatic leader around, one not afraid to take on issues like health care, global warming, or a global financial meltdown.
Perhaps next year. After all... tomorrow is another day.
[breaking into song]
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There'll be sun!
Just thinkin' about
Tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs,
And the sorrow
'Til there's none!
When I'm stuck a day
That's gray,
And lonely,
I just stick out my chin
And Grin,
And Say,
Oh!
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
'Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
A way!
"one big-ticket,
Submitted by Hypatia1951 (not verified) on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 1:30 PM PDT.
"one big-ticket, high-profile, must-pass bill"
i hate those fuckers.
nobody reads the whole thing.
they just check for their pet stuff.
Human Nature
Submitted by Trippp on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 1:48 PM PDT.
Yeah, I'm a broken record, but so what. The most we can really hope to do is influence who does the dieing, and where and when and how.
Humans terraform Earth and we adapt. That is what we do. Archimedes wished for a lever and a fulcrum upon which to place it so he could move the Earth.
Well it took us awhile but we finally have that power and we are using it.
Tripp
That's a laff riot
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 2:45 PM PDT.
Tripp wrote: "Humans terraform Earth ..."
If by "terraform" you mean "reduce a rich, diverse, complex biosphere into a toxic waste dump", then yeah, we sure do. Much the way cancer cells anthropomorphize the human body.
It's bad on coal too
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 2:52 PM PDT.
Another major problem with this legislation is that it would squander billions on phony "clean coal" research on capturing and sequestering CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. Such research has little if any chance of producing any commercially viable technologies -- especially given that by the time it could produce any such practical technology, decades down the road, wind and solar generated electricity will already be far cheaper than coal-fired electricity even without costly CCS add-ons.
But I used the word "phony" for a reason. The reason the bill proposes to spend billions on "clean coal" research is to provide an excuse for allowing new coal-fired power plants without CCS to continue being built, indefinitely. Such plants can then be called "CCS ready" which means absolutely nothing.
The number one priority to address global warming is to end the use of coal for electricity generation. This bill seeks to avoid confronting that reality.
Please excuse the rant,
Submitted by John Hansen (not verified) on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 3:06 PM PDT.
Please excuse the rant, but...
I try and I try and I try and I can't understand how this issue is advancing like it is. Why are we going to take such drastic steps on something so unproven? Playing on fears is no way to make major policy decisions. Look at the chart Kevin puts up for evidence. Predicted climate increase in 2070-2100!!!
Do any of you people really believe we can accurately predict 60 years previously something we understand so little about. This is insane. Do any of you understand how hard it is to do climate modeling accurately? Have any of the climate models done something like put in data for 1930 and accurately predicted the global temperature of today??? This would be quite a feat.
I really do not understand why liberals have a tendency to fall for doomsday scenarios so easily. Please reconsider your absolute surety on this issue. Do any of you really know how the scientific funding game goes? Don't you understand that when an idea becomes politically popular, scientists will jump on the bandwagon just like anyone else in order to get funding.
Anyway, thanks for the space to rant. I probably didn't change any minds. But please read someone else except the echo chamber of people who are gaining money from the increased funds for studying global weather. Its easy to claim that everyone who is a AGW denier must be an oil industry shill. Like maybe Freeman Dyson. Oh, I forgot, he's not an industry shill, he is an independent and brilliant thinker and another dissenter on AGW. ( Therefore he must have some connection to BIG OIL)
Brown initiatives like
Submitted by Luther on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 4:34 PM PDT.
Brown initiatives like Comprehensive Immigration Reform are bound to swamp any green initiatives, most of which are pie-in-the-sky anyway.
Great - John Hansen tries to sound reasonable.
Submitted by Trippp on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 4:41 PM PDT.
John,
You wield a pretty broad brush, painting all scientists as money grubbing opportunists willing to jump on any funding bandwagon.
Sheesh.
I dispute that point. Actually, I assert that because most scientists are cautious and careful the human race will fail to heed their warning and will always put today's comfort ahead of tomorrow's problems.
So be calm - there will not be any big knee jerk reaction, and certainly no big solution, and we will face a global climate change slightly mitigated by some actually good ideas such as wind and solar generated electricity.
And despite the best work of many well-intentioned and smart people the human population will rise until is can't rise anymore.
I hope that even you can admit that strip mining coal, which is irreplaceable, so that it can be burned to create electricity, creating pollution and CO2, is a very inelegant solution to our power needs. Coal is finite, it is dirty, and it is a kluge. For awhile it has been dirt cheap but even you must admit the supply of coal on Earth is finite.
So chill dude. Hey, I had to chill while Bush hastened our fall by stupidly invading Iraq. Now you chill while some people try in vain to solve another huge problem. At least this time we aren't directly killing people, at least not quickly and violently. Instead we will slowly starve the poorest of us all, but that was going to happen regardless of what we did anyway.
Tripp
What we need is a research
Submitted by alan (not verified) on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 4:56 PM PDT.
What we need is a research program on how to stop coal mining.
What's the cost to convert
Submitted by Bruce the canuck (not verified) on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 5:48 PM PDT.
What's the cost to convert to solar and wind? A very reasonable $420B
Does it make sense to convert to a battery-electric vehicle fleet? Yes!
But what about the Canuckistan Tar Sands? Our right-wing think tank trained prime minister notwithstanding, most of use want em' to stay in the ground.
There are a raft of reasons to make this shift, and the price looks pretty reasonable now as a *useful* stimulus investment.
Second, it allocates a
Submitted by Jasper on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 6:35 PM PDT.
Second, it allocates a portion of the emission credits directly to affected industries instead of auctioning 100% of them.
I heard the number for the give-away is 15%. I'd rather have zero give aways, but I can live with 15%. The offset problem, too, while subject to abuse, can be cracked down on via stricter oversight. I simply can't let myself wallow in pessimism at this point. If we can get 80-90% of this bill passed, we're on our way to stopping man-made climate change. While the prognosis isn't perfect, just think about how much better things are than they were six months ago.
Bruce is 100% correct which
Submitted by anon (not verified) on Wed Apr. 1, 2009 7:26 PM PDT.
Bruce is 100% correct which is why Obama's behavior on these issues is so appalling.
The Dems and Obama completely screwed the pooch on the stimulus. Instead of Kennedyesque leadership "before this decade is out", "not because it is easy" we got Geithner pouring money into AIG. Have you checked out what the stimulus is buying in your neighborhood? In my neighborhood the bulk is going to pot hole repair.
Hot air from John Hansen
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Thu Apr. 2, 2009 6:29 AM PDT.
John Hansen wrote: "Why are we going to take such drastic steps on something so unproven?"
Your deliberate lies about the reality of anthropogenic global warming have been repeatedly exposed and debunked as the fake, phony, ExxonMobil-scripted propaganda that they are, on this and other blogs, and you know it.
To say you have no credibility and that your comment is nothing but disingenuous trolling would be too kind. You are a deliberate liar. Your dishonest comments deserve nothing but contempt.
Kennedyesque?
Submitted by Trippp on Thu Apr. 2, 2009 7:38 AM PDT.
Here's the scoop. Kennedy's "man on the moon" goal, which hit me hard during my formative years and actually shaped much of my life, was also very much aligned with the military-industrial complex.
Responding to global climate change is totally the opposite of the 'constant growth' model if the military-industrial complex.
I assert that our challenge at this time is much greater than the challenge we faced in the 60's. Instead of competing with a flawed competitor, we face the challenge of thwarting human nature and reversing a century of heightened expectations.
Usually at this time people begin to get angry with me and tell me to shut up.
Still, I choose my message and picture with care - to honestly state our predicament and to show that humankind has prevailed during times as difficult as these before.
Tripp
Monkey See No Evil
Submitted by Michael L. Wagner on Tue Jun. 9, 2009 10:00 AM PDT.
Here Read:
+ New climate change legislation overlooks a major GHG source: industrial ag / Grist Magazine:
–”The bill fails to address greenhouse gas emission reductions from agriculture, factory farms, and animal manure whatsoever–and even goes the extra mile to specifically exempt the entire sector from any type of regulation.”
“Enteric fermentation is literally the largest source of methane emissions in the entire country.”
+ EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program / EPA:
–”Municipal solid waste landfills are the second largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States.”
“At the same time, methane emissions from landfills represent a lost opportunity to capture and use a significant energy source.”
Also read:
+ Beware emissions trading, airlines stand to make billions / Mother Jones,
+ The Carbon Folly / BusinessWeek,
+ The Case Against Carbon Trading / Transnational Institute:
–”…Citigroup’s Peter Atherton confessed that the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme had ‘done nothing to curb emissions.’ He admitted,‘Prices up, emissions up, profits up …’ Who wins and loses? Coal and nuclear-based generators–biggest winners. Hedge funds and energy traders–even bigger winners. Losers … Consumers!”
Rather than cap-and-trade, the Govt. should set caps on GreenHouse Gas emission, then provide 0-interest loans for companies to Go Green (when such cannot afford to).
Also Read:
+ Loophole may mean bigger, not smaller, cars / MSNBC:
--"New rules may actually encourage automakers to build behemoths."
"Too bad the rules will discourage automakers from manufacturing the kind of small cars that the Obamaites favor and, in some cases, encourage carmakers to do exactly the opposite. That's right: make some models bigger."
"... the legislation, while forcing a significant boost in fuel economy, has loopholes big enough to drive a truck through."
"But say a big SUV misses its target by one mile per gallon. A carmaker could just make the vehicle a bit larger, allowing it to hit an easier fuel economy target."
"'The system doesn't do anything to encourage smaller vehicles,' ... And even if gasoline prices rise again and prompt consumers to look for smaller cars, he says, the new rules give automakers less incentive to sell more of them.
+ From Bagels to Coal Fires: An Unorthodox Economist Keeps Pushing for Change / NY Times, 2007:
–”… the abundance of underground coal fires in abandoned mines and other places that not only waste coal but contribute mightily to worldwide carbon dioxide emissions.”
”… underground fires in China alone contribute as much CO2 to the atmosphere each year as all the cars and light trucks in the U.S.”
Meanwhile, the Climate Change Bill grants BILLIONS in subsidies to Clean Coal.
Here Read:
+ The Illusion of Clean Coal / The Economist:
+ Trouble in store--Carbon capture and storage / The Economist:
+ The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal / BusinessWeek,
+ King Coal's Latest Con--Clean Coal is Not Clean / CommonDreams
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
