Cap And Trade Bill Hitting Snags In The House
It's always been an intractable political issue, but the number of reports indicating that new cap-and-trade legislation is hitting a lot of snags is remarkable for a couple reasons. The first is that the bill in question--the American Clean Energy and Security Act--has been introduced in the House, where legislation can be fast tracked much more easily than it can in the Senate. The second is that it's lead sponsor, Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA), is an extremely talented legislator, who has put a tremendous number of professional resources into making sure the government addresses climate change.
Almost two weeks ago, worried that the bill would stall, Waxman had to delay its first markup hearing. Then, last week, a rift emerged between Waxman and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, over the viability of passing major energy legislation this year. Now, House Blue Dogs are trying to torpedo the bill, and Waxman has been put in the position of promising to provide manufacturers and energy producers with billions of dollars worth of free pollution permits under its terms.
And that's all before there's been a single vote on it. We'll keep tracking the bill's progress. Climate change legislation reportedly remains President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's chief legislative priority. But these developments must come as unwelcome news both to them and to the environmentalists who came out quickly in praise of the bill when it was released earlier this spring.


















Castrate the BlueDogs now. What the hell is up with these scumbags running the campaign committees? Last year it was Chucky in the Senate and now Van Hollen.
May 7, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a little bit of a misnomer to call the credits "free" if the government doesn't sell them at an initial auction. Even if the government allocates them at no cost, they have a value, and as the allocations decrease over the years, those needing more credits will have to pay more. At the end of the day, the emissons get reduced and the planet heals.
The cap and trade programs for SO2 and NOx were "free" by this definition, and they worked just fine.
May 7, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely correct that the credits don't need to be auctioned off to work. It's the limit that matters. It seems to me a hybrid system would be a reasonable compromise. Set limits for each year and give "free" credits equal to, say 80% of the limit and auction the rest.
May 7, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, we have to start somewhere. But we absolutely have to start it.
May 7, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the key. Let's not let get so caught up in arguing over it that nothing gets done. There is no perfect plan.
May 7, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dislike auctioning credits on principle. While I understand the need for revenue, I don't think auctions are the way to go.
It seems to me companies that have more cash than brains may bid up credits and pass the cost onto consumers. In much the same way as the insurance industry acts as a de facto monopoly becasue they all have a largely captive customer base to pass costs onto while failing to modernize.
So I can envision a scenario where large utilities buy credits, pass the costs onto customers, fail to modernize or meet targets, meanwhile customers stay locked in, and the whole thing winds up a political fiasco and nothing really changes.
May 8, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the other side of the argument is that may happen anyway, and that if the credits were auctioned you'd at least have revenue to potentially research a green technology to alleviate the situation.
On the other, other hand, I like the idea of a regulatory body able to give credits to better actors directly, such as a promising clean technology which may have insufficient cash flow for a a bidding war with an oil giant. Auctions also have a serious potential for anti-competitive manipulation determining who holds credits.
May 8, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that assumes that customers do nothing in response to rising energy costs, which historically is not the case. The primary purpose of the revenue from selling the credits is not, in my view, to fund renewable energy research, it's to alleviate the costs of carbon emissions for those who truly can't afford them, and smooth out the curve of increasing cost to give those who can time to adapt.
May 8, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine. We can start with EPA regulation of carbon under the Clean Air Act. Let's see how long it takes then for the coal producing states to start clamoring for a carbon emission bill. Not long, I bet.
May 7, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we help?
Someone (Organize America, MoveOn, Concerned Scientists) please tell us how to help!
May 7, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to help then recycle your goods; it has been proven by Scientist that what congress is doing won't work. The energy companies will just hike up prices whens laws like these are passed and the American people end up paying them...a hidden form of tax. Do you think Congress will tell the truth? If you want to really know the truth about how we affect our environment study Quantum Physics which accounts for the human mind and how humans affect the environment. Even if carbon emmissions went to ZERO the world would still be messed up. Hint: It's all about how we create and need to start taking responsibility for our total state of consciousness. It will take a while for people to figure this out, probably with some natural disasters to wake them up, but hopefully we can learn the smart way and dis enroll from the school of hard knocks.
June 24, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink