Cap and Trade is Dead (Really, Truly, I'm Not Kidding). Who's to Blame?

[BridgeTheGap]

The headline has been written countless times, but this time it is true: carbon cap-and-trade of any sort will not come out of this Congress—and perhaps it never will. Instead of comprehensive economy-wide carbon cap that Senator John Kerry had urged—and that the House had already passed a year ago—or even the compromise utility-only cap bill that had been suggested as an alternative, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he would move forward next week on a bill that only deals with the BP oil spill and a few other low-profile energy policies. The reason was simple, according to Reid—politics:


It's easy to count to 60. I could do it by the time I was in eighth grade. My point is this, we know where we are. We know we don't have the votes . This is a step forward.

That Reid couldn't get a filibuster-beating super-majority to pass climate and energy legislation surely seems to be the case—after all, the Majority Leader can indeed count. But the idea that such an unambitious bill—even after the shock of the oil spill—represents anything but treading water is a joke. According to Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico—who had pushed an earlier compromise energy bill out of his committee—Reid's bill won't include a carbon cap or even a renewable energy standard, which would require utilities to source a certain percentage of their electricity from clean sources. Instead it's likely to contain energy efficiency upgrades for home appliances and measures to push the nation's trucking fleet to use cleaner natural gas. (Something the Texas oil-turned-wind tycoon T. Boone Pickens has been advocating for years, as Bradford Plumer of the New Republic points out—so at least a Texas billionaire who made his money off petroleum is having a good day.) It's possible that the Democrats will be able to put some form of a carbon cap back into the bill after the August recess or even during the lame-duck session following the November elections—but that has about a snowball's chance in midtown Manhattan (after global warming) of coming true.

So what happened? How did a Democratic President who came to office talking up climate change and promising a strong carbon cap, plus a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives, plus the late impetus of the oil spill, somehow come away with barely more than nothing? As a stunned environmental community sifts through the wreckage, they'll find no shortage of perpetrators.

Read more: http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/07/22/cap-and-trade-is-dead-really-truly-im-not-kidding-whos-to-blame/#ixzz0uVqBPEoB

[Webster Green]

1. It took Reid till 8th grade to count to 60?

That's fucked up.

[Statistical]

2. LOL.

Kinda sad none of his teachers realized that he still couldn't count pass 59 in the 7th grade. God bless his 8th grade math teacher for getting him back on track with Kindergarden level skills.

Come on Reid don't make it harder than it has to be. "Count to 60? I could do that as a child".

[doc03]

3. That's what I was thinking, even I could do that in the

1st grade.

[jimlup]

4. This sucks but...

I need to come up to speed on both the politics and the economic arguments. Can anyone suggest a good blog site for this information?

I'm less concerned with placing blame and more concerned with the question "what can we do now?" Everywhere is still in reaction mode and sulking.

[bananas]

8. Climate Progress is the best blog on these issues

and he recommends an article in Rolling Stone: http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/22/the-failed-presidency-of-barack-obama/

[jimlup]

9. Thanks!

:hi:

[bananas]

10. Regarding "what can we do now" - advocacy on the state and local level

I can't find the article right now, but state and local government RPS and FIT (renewable portfolio standards and feed-in tarriffs) have been extremely effective, we need to expand these policies; here's a related article (not the one I was looking for): Texas hits renewable energy targets 15 years early

Also, without national climate legislation, the EPA will start regulating CO2 as a pollutant, this will have a big effect at the state and local level:

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/blogs/blog-display/blogs/pgww-blogs/david_wagman/post987_3417089596076241716.html

Expect a Mess as EPA Rules Take Hold

It’s been a few years since the words "stranded investment" have been uttered. The last time was during the tumultuous days of deregulation when utilities were compelled to divest, mothball and even shutter generating assets. Now the term is reemerging in the context of environmental rules coming from the Environmental Protection Agency.

<snip>

Oh, and if that weren’t enough, states will be able to impose taxes on carbon emissions once EPA declares the gas to be a pollutant. APPA estimates that could amount to around $43 a ton. With states starved for revenue, taxes on carbon may come sooner rather than later.

[doc03]

5. Looking at my old electric bills the cost per KWH has increased

31% over the last 4 years. You add Cap and Trade to that what is electric going to cost in the next 4 years? I am retired and now and there is talk about cutting the SS COLA. Even when they pay a COLA they take it back with a raise in Medicare. There hasn't been a COLA the last couple years and there likely won't be for another 2 years but the electric bills are already scheduled to go up 8% a year. How are retired or low income people supposed to heat their homes if you add Cap and Trade tax to the bill, go out and chop wood?

[OHdem10]

6. Intensity of Republicans makes the Democrats roll over every time.

[The Croquist]

7. So what happened? / It's the economy

Cap and Trade will cost a fortune.

All the politicizing about it will not change that simple fact. There is a reason that industry uses coal and it isn't because they want to destroy the environment. It is because it is cheaper then other fuels. Put cap and trade in place and they will pay more and, believe it or not they will pass these costs on to the consumer. Eventually it will result in even more industry moving overseas, more jobs lost, less revenue to the government and higher costs to the government in the form of social services, unemployment payments, food stamps and other payouts.

[txlibdem]

11. Didn't we already get all that bad stuff?

Industries have been moving overseas as fast as they can for more than a decade. No Cap and Trade to blame.

8 million jobs lost in the 2008 - 2009, can't blame that on Cap and Trade.

Gov't revenue is way down and it's now paying out more in social services, unemployment payments, food stamps, and payouts.

The status quo HAS ALREADY COST US A FORTUNE. Again no Cap and Trade yet.

Methinks your point fizzles...

[The Croquist]

12. Methinks you've only seen the tip of the iceberg if Cap and Trade passed

The lost 8 million jobs (is it really that many?) isn't because of environmentalism and it isn't just industry. Cap and Trade will destroy industry in the US.

As I said earlier. Business isn't out to destroy the planet, it is out to make money. If it is cheaper to make or buy products overseas and import them they will. If it is cheaper to make them here using illegal workers they will. If it is cheaper to use coal then windmills they will.

Cap and Trade will make it cheaper to make or buy products overseas. China is exempt from Kyoto. So is India. The only way to prevent that is to put tariffs on imports and I don't see that happening.

[groovedaddy]

13. Paul Krugman's take on this very question

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26krugman.html?th&emc=th