Cap And Trade? Again?

Confronted with a Senate lacking a filibuster proof majority, Cap and Trade seemed like one of the only plausible solutions likely to pass.

When it was considered earlier this year, I blogged about it as follows:
.
Energy, Fuzzy Math and Lieberman-Warner
.
One of the reasons that many companies like the cap and trade system is that setting it up is a fundamentally political act, subject to all the good and bad that is decision making in Washington, D.C. Coalitions are formed, front groups created, lobbyists hired, Senate campaigns funded. All to ensure that someone else has to pay the tax, or, in the case of cap and trade, to argue over the cap (the lower the cap, the lower the implicit tax, and vice versa). Also to fight over whether or not the initial allocation of CO2 permits are distributed based on current pollution or auctioned off, and if auctioned off, who gets the revenue (the equivalent of who gets to spend the tax revenue). Credo
.
It should come as little surprise that one of the voices again promoting the flawed solution emanates from the Boston Globe: Inspiration for climate change.
.
The grassroots' involvement that resulted in the recent election outcome should serve as a wake up call that unworkable ideas from the past need to be discarded and a fresh framework that makes sense needs to reinvent our energy future.
.
With leadership, energy efficiency and that dirty word, energy conservation could become the first major incremental reduction in energy use. It can be done and is being done by many.
.
At the top of this page is a search feature. By typing in a word, such as 'energy,' the posts will be sorted. Those posts contain links, articles and the words and statistical reports of others indicating that the US could save between 20% and 40% of current energy consumption just by making minor changes. “Changed your light bulbs? Now let's change the laws." Rep. Barney Frank Works For Sensible Energy Solutions
.
In addition, there are a wide number of legislative incentives that can and should be offered that would cost little, have proved successful elsewhere and make greater sense than Cap and Trade on a national level.
.
Hot in here? includes:

Benefits of net metering
Massachusetts Maritime Academy currently pays the retail price, 17 cents per kilowatt-hour, for any electricity it needs beyond that generated by the school's 660-kilowatt wind turbine.Currently, state law allows the owners of 60 kilowatt turbines, roughly one-tenth the size of the MMA turbine, to credit any surplus power they produce on windy days only against what they have to buy to meet their needs on calm days.

The net metering provision in the state energy bill would more than triple that size to 2-megawatt turbines.

MMA, which is now paid a wholesale price of 7 cents per kilowatt-hour for its surplus electricity, would be allowed to apply that power against its total electric bill, at the retail price of 17 cents per kilowatt-hour, making each kilowatt-hour worth more than double what it is now.
Sources: Massachusetts Maritime Academy and Cape Light Compact
.
Tilting at wind mills? includes:

...MMA, which is now paid a wholesale price of 7 cents per kilowatt-hour for its surplus electricity, could apply that power against its total electric bill, at the retail price of 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. That more than doubles what the electricity they generate is worth to them.
.
To the right of this blog page is a list of environmental and energy sites. A google search produces even more. Let's refuse to accept old solutions, but instead insist on those that make sense to you and me. We can do better.