As the debate continues on Lieberman-Warner, the complexities of the proposal and amendments are being presented.
.
UCSUSA offers some statistics that are striking: Per Capita CO2 emissions: US: 5.61 tons/capita; China: 1.05 tons/capita. .
It might seem that other nations are leading the way as the US continues to bow to energy lobbyists, with only token consideration to real solutions or consumers. Stick a few tokens in to help consumers and they won't notice the massive giveaways.
.
The "Cap And Trade" provisions are being waved like the flag of victory and seemed questionable as a solution.
.
The little kernel of explanation below explains the political football this bill risks creating:
.
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 .
So instead of a Global Warming Bill that makes sense, sets achievable goals after so much inaction and creates positive change, this bill mires the US in more lobbyists and continued pollution.
.
Some compromise is necessary to pass legislation, but this presents more pork than real solution, and when the press reports that presidential candidate McCain, an early supporter of previous efforts to impose cap and trade, is holding out for bigger subsidies to nuclear (Credo), one of the most heavily subsidized energy industries, the sham is unveiled. .
Below are additional comments from other sources:
.
In these "cap-and-trade" proposals, it's the polluting companies that have to pay for the privilege to pollute our public sky, after getting to pollute for free over the last century. (And Lieberman-Warner falls short of making companies pay for all pollution permits, a point of contention among environmental advocates.) .
The "trillions" in cost being talked about are costs over the course of decades, not in a single year. (AEI simply left out a timeline in their fuzzy math.).
And those costs would not be easily shifted onto the backs of consumers, so long as we use the revenue to launch an Apollo project, creating 3 million sustainable jobs generating clean energy alternatives and energy-efficiencies. Also, some revenue from the polluters would be given back to consumers to mitigate any short-term price increases as we transition to a clean energy economy. .
Conservatives will continue to be alarmists about the costs, conveniently ignoring that their do-nothing strategy has dramatically increased energy costs without any benefits at all.
.
The latest version of the Climate Security Act, unveiled on May 21, has some new components that stem from negotiations between Boxer, the bill's sponsors, and other senators, but it's substantially the same legislation that was passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee last December. It's not as strong as most activists and climate scientists would like, but strong enough that many of them are cheering it as a big step forward.
