amazngdrx opines that “cap and trade needs to die, but it probably won’t.” When Democrats have a majority then they impose a cap. As soon as the Repugnants could win a few seats back, then the cap would be lifted. Lots of politics, but little progress toward lowering the increasing level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Subsidies work differently, once a commercial change wave gets going, adjusting caps won’t stop it. Renewable energy will cost less going forward as the fuel inflation spiral inevitably leaves fossil and nuclear energy in the dustbin.
Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-OR, says cap-and-trade is the wrong road to reducing emissions. And, CarbonTax.org says climate cap-and-trade is just more corporate welfare added to the economic stimulus proposals. So, is cap-and-trade the real “poison pill” rather than a carbon tax, as Gristmill regular David Roberts attests.
This may piss off some people I respect a great deal. Nonetheless, after hearing it in several off-the-record conversations in D.C. last week, I believe it’s something that needs to be said publicly:
The 111th U.S. Congress is not going to pass a carbon tax. Calls for a carbon tax, to the extent they have any effect, will complicate and possibly derail passage of carbon legislation.
It’s possible that a carbon tax (and/or cap-and-dividend) bill will be introduced. One or both might even make it to a full vote, though I doubt it. But they won’t pass. If you want carbon pricing out of this Congress, cap-and-trade is what you’re getting. It follows that your energies are best spent ensuring that cap-and-trade legislation is as strong as possible.
“Them’s the facts,” as David Roberts sees them. Instead, he believes, “For a brief window of time we have a Congress and president ready to really do something on carbon pricing.” So who is more correct, amazing or Mister Roberts?
I would like to believe that there is validity to both arguments, i.e., if cap-and-trade is the best hope for climate legislation for now, then let’s avoid scuttling even the smallest advantage. At the same time, I would like to see advocates avoid rhetoric that propounds such an inadequate strategy as “the best chance the nation has ever had.” If so, then, indeed, it is a bitter irony.
4 Comments
This blog previously has noted that, since there is no such thing as clean coal, when BAUAAE-ers fiercely oppose a carbon tax, it often is because such policy would create a financial disincentive not only to use cheap coal for power but also to convert cheaper coal, tar sands, waste oil, etc. into liquid fuel.
Top 5 Myths about Coal
1. It’s Clean
2. It’s Safe
3. It’s Cheap
4. It’s Good for the Economy
5. It Can Help Stop Global Warming
P.S. Obama wasn’t duped, Obama dealt. As Altnet.org commentator Pirate1 notes:
And, as Altnet.org commentator radnar sadly observes:
Michael Hoexter is another pundit, who cautions that a reliance upon carbon pricing alone “might be simply an abdication of the authority of government in the face of resistance by industry.” Instead, he argues for a comprehensive climate and energy policy. Of course, it is one thing for a pundit to say, “Sometimes leaders need to ‘put their foot down’, if there is an overwhelming case to be made for new rules made and administered wisely” and a wholly different story to get environmentally responsible policy from Congress critters, who stiil debate ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Reserve) drilling. In any case, Hoexter explains what he perceives to be components to a comprehensive climate and energy policy:
One Trackback
[...] public awareness, even when incapable of solving the problems associated with climate change. Thus, this weblog had acquiesced to the expressed hope that linking a rise price in goods and services to GHG emissions, [...]