- ‹ previous
- 83 of 8902
- next ›
Cantwell's Alternate Climate Bill
Having cleared the Environment and Public Works committee, the cap-and-trade bill is now being considered by Sen. Max Baucus' finance panel, which has jurisdiction over how carbon permits will be allocated. But at a hearing on Thursday, committee member Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) signaled that she thinks cap and trade contains too many opportunities for manipulation of carbon markets, and instead wants to offer her alternative—a proposal for a "cap-and-dividend" scheme.
Cap-and-dividend works by only limiting emissions by "upstream" industries—that is, the first sellers of fossil fuels, like oil refineries and coal mines. All pollution permits under the cap would be auctioned, and most of the revenues would be returned to energy consumers. As with cap-and-trade, the limit on emissions becomes stricter over time.
Now Cantwell may have a chance to offer elements of her bill for consideration. "When the right time is there we'll certainly be putting ideas on the table," she told reporters. The dividend idea, Cantwell said, "would be something that the committee want to discuss and have a lot of input on."
Cantwell has a far better acronym than the Kerry-Boxer bill—hers is called the "Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal– or CLEAR, for short. In part because her proposal only covers first sellers, her bill is more concise than the cap-and-trade proposals, coming in at just 32 pages. By comparison, the chairman's mark of the Kerry-Boxer bill is 925 pages, and Waxman-Markey totaled 1,427 pages in the end. Granted, legislation is by nature complex and brevity does not necessarily make good policy. But at a time when complicated, inscrutable market structures have wreaked havoc on our financial system and distrust about climate legislation doling handouts to big business runs rampant, the appeal of something simple and direct is clear.
Cantwell's bill requires all carbon trading to be done on exchanges, and would allow only polluters to participate in trading. (Cap and trade allows speculators to participate in its carbon market.) And where her measure requires 100 percent of pollution permits to be auctioned, Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey both distribute roughly 85 percent of those permits free of charge. Seventy-five percent of the revenues from the sale of the permits would then be refunded to consumers, in the form of a "carbon refund payment," to offset the increase in energy prices. The other 25 percent would go to a dedicated trust fund for job training programs, clean energy research and development, and climate mitigation and adaptation programs.
Baucus declined to offer a time line for his committee work on Tuesday. "No date set," he told reporters. "It really depends on a lot of factors: other committee's actions on health care, Copenhagen ... There will be other hearings though. We're taking this very seriously." Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), who along with Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). is spearheading a separate track of negotiations in the Senate, now says it's unlikely that this effort will produce a full bill before early next year.





























Her bill is probably shit
Her bill is probably shit too. Why not cover what these two San Francisco based EPA lawyers want to see, which is "cap and fee rebate":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLHCvYj0kzk
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/politics/10epa.html
Environmental Agency Warns 2 Staff Lawyers Over Video Criticizing Climate Policy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR200910...
Cap-and-trade mirage
By Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Supporters of the climate bill passed by the House and the similar bill under consideration in the Senate -- including President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders -- say that the cap-and-trade approach would guarantee greenhouse-gas reductions. But this claim ignores the flaws inherent in both bills that would undermine even their weak emissions-reduction targets and would lock in climate degradation.
...
The House and Senate climate bills are not a first step in the right direction. They would give away valuable rights in cap-and-trade permits and create a trillion-dollar carbon-offsets market that will not lead to needed reductions. Together, the illusion of greenhouse-gas reductions and the creation of powerful lobbies seeking to protect newly created profits in permits and offsets would lock in climate degradation for a decade or more. The near-term opportunity to create an effective international framework would also be lost.
In theory what Cantwell's
In theory what Cantwell's bill does is postpone immediate tough limits, with longer term increases clearly spelled out. That gives industries a breather to prepare for the increases, time to implement changes to handle the needed changes. As your linked story says, this is likely to draw support from Dems in manufacturing regions. At the same time it should also garner support from those seeing the boost to efficiency boosting technologies and alternative energy sources.