« Poll: Americans Oppose Non-Existent Threat Of Replacing Dollar | Home | Bunning: My Fundraising Is "Lousy," But Getting Better »
Markey: Some Emissions Permits Likely Will Be Given Away
Elana reported below on Greenpeace's efforts to push the House's climate change debate to the left, noting some of their early reactions to the Waxman-Markey legislation unveiled today.
Greenpeace also highlights one politically difficult question that was left unanswered by Waxman and Markey: Would emissions credits be given away free to fossil-fuel-burning businesses, or auctioned off to raise money for green transit and/or taxpayer rebates?
As it happens, Markey addressed that very question today during his conference call with reporters. His answer was somewhat vague--he refused to announce any goals about the proportion of emissions he'd like to see sold at auction, for instance. But he did note that, in the final bill, "what is most likely to happen is a combination of the two"--some will be given away, the rest will be auctioned.
That won't please Greenpeace, and it's not what Obama asked for, but if Markey's saying that now, it's likely that there's no way around it.
Advertisement
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
No, no... a thousand times no!
There is one point only, and that is to move away from carbon emissions. Free allocations to current polluters is a Get Out of Jail Free card. This will only delay change. The worst offenders should be the first to change. Making them pay proportionate to their emissions is the only way to raise their costs and give them and their customers an incentive to move toward clean energy alternatives.
By the way, this is also the policy that is fair.
The costs of carbon dioxide and other pollutants have never been captured in the price to consumers. Coal emissions not only contribute enormous amounts to global warming, they are correlated very strongly to asthma, cancer, autism... the list goes on. Wind and solar energy do not have these indirect costs.
Cap and trade with offsets and free credits did not work in Europe. Consumers did not turn to non polluting sources, because they did not have a price incentive to do so.
Are we as concerned about burning gasoline now as we were when the price was four bucks a gallon? I moved from California, where my electricity costs were double per kwh what they are in North Carolina. Why? Because NC is primarily a coal burning power generation area. Should the rest of the nation help me transition to California rates. I don't think so. I am already getting a subsidy from everyone who gets sick from coal plant emissions but is unable to force me to pay part of their medical bills. And I could be the one who gets sick.
March 31, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wind, solar, renewables etc. sound nice, but the reality is that they can't provide enough energy to satisfy more than a fraction of current needs, much less future needs, and what they can provide will take a long time to develop and implement. The reality is, fossil fuels will provide the bulk of our energy needs for at least the next 50 years. Pretending otherwise is wishful thinking.
Cap and trade works. It has worked with sulfur dioxide emissions, and it can work with CO2. It just has to be enforced.
March 31, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Known and affordable technologies to conserve energy consumption/improve efficiency would offset 35 to 50 percent of current consumption. This is like moving to higher mileage cars. But there has to be a cost/price incentive to get consumers to do it.
The other part of the formula is to make burning fossil fuels less polluting, especially to lower carbon dioxide emissions (but medical savings would also be huge).
Again, the goal is reducing emissions. Use less energy. Use more clean energy. Make fossil fuel burning cleaner. All with cost and price incentives in the marketplace, with no special deals for any special interest.
March 31, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to ensure that these carbon credits are completely auctioned and not given away to big polluters. This is not just an attempt to "move the legislation to the left," but an important policy piece. For more information on this important point: http://www.ncconservationnetwork.org/mainblog/archive/2009/03/12/why-100-auction-matters
March 31, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink