Obama Acknowledges Senate Unlikely To Adopt Pollution Limits

If he thinks that clean energy sources can become cheaper without capping emissions from dirty sources, he's dreaming. Hopefully Obama will not succumb to the magical thinking that somehow if we throw 6B at clean energy that that is going to upend the status quo.

Honestly, I think they should just scrap the entire effort if they don't pass cap and trade. To say that a renewable electricity standard of 15% by 2020 is going to do anything is ridiculous, given that the EIA already thinks that we'll be at 15% by 2020 with no subsidies at all.

There comes a time that the Democrats have to lead or simply admit they're keeping the seats of power warm for the GOP and their corporate masters.

Cap & Trade was hopeless after the HCR debacle. I said from the beginning that HCR was child's play compared to energy. THe ONLY way energy was going to get done was if Obama built up momentum from HCR. Um, that didn't happen. Let's see: what else will the Democrats fail at?

I'd like to add what France did. Add an assessment on all carbon energy, then every so often cut everyone a check to distribute all the money collected.
Argue it isn't a tax, since it is revenue neutral.

As someone who was involved with it, the fact of the matter is that we have absolute proof that cap and trade works to reduce pollution while not hurting the economy. The acid rain precursor emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides were quite effective reduced in the 1990s due to the market-based cap and trade program that came about following the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Emissions of both pollutants from fossil-fuel power plants dropped tremendously over the years. And none of the scary scenarios put forth by industry and the Repubs came to pass. Not a one. In fact, even the government cost estimates turned out to be high. Meanwhile, the economy grew in the 1990s.

Anyone who believes cap and trade will cause economic hardship is 1. lying through their teeth and 2. simply parroting false claims from industry. Market-based cap and trade worked great. It was a win-win. There is no legitimate excuse for it not to work this time.

Use the EPA to regulate emissions. Fuck 'em.

The recent Harper's Magazine (not conservative) contained a critical review of CaT proposals and how it currently works in the world. The conclusion was not positive for such carbon controls and supports Obama's (newest) approach. I favor a concentration on clean energy. I just get this feeling of a huge carbon market bubble that would rise ominously from the Halls of Congress and corporate boardrooms across the world.

Power plants, the focus of sulfur and nitrogen CaT, produce 2.5b tons of carbon while cars produce 1.5b tons. Are individual auto owners to be a player in CaT? I fail to see how carbon trading is going to address the various sources of carbon not to mention other greenhouse gases.

I am fully convinced that the Dems could have 100 votes in the senate and still would face filibuster problems on CaT and HCR.

Obama is simply acknowledging the political reality in Washington. He does not need another health care-style fight on his hands.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

EPA regulations are the way to go. The Waxman-Markey ACES bill was a gift to the coal industry.

Cap and trade was never the way forward on energy/climate legislation. It would do nothing to reduce carbon emissions. It would only tax the system, and pass the tax onto the consumer. Ultimately, we all may have to pay more for our energy consumption (maybe even a lot more than we currently do), but this shouldn't happen unless there is a system in place to dramatically reduce overall carbon emissions. Cap and trade is not such a system.