© 2010 Joshua Stark
The NY Times reports that Obama is suggesting that the only way for the energy bill to get passed is if C&T is separated from it, and then passed later, on its own.
It won't. Pass on its own, that is.
flx1247rg
So, we can continue to pay for carbon damages on the back end, through climate change, rather than on the front-end, and we can continue to subsidize carbon emissions in their market competition with non-carbon emitting energy practices and conservation.
Now, I'm no fan of the current proposal. But, considering the changing political climate around carbon, and the (contrived) exhaustion politicians get when they don't get something passed the first time, this is not good news for actual carbon reductions, or for alternative decisions for folks to have.
The feds keep slip sliding away, pushed, it would appear, by big ag. interests. Take a look at the folks most worried about cap & trade in the Senate, and ask what industries might be influencing their decisions.
Meanwhile, farmers continue to be beholden to large ag. industry, hamstrung by infertile seeds and feedlots, carbon-heavy institutions that profits only a few huge corporations.
Meanwhile, California is moving forward with its Cap & Trade proposal. Please, please, Air Resources Board, read and incorporate the recommendations on cap & trade made by some of the best minds in environmental economics in their report to you, especially the parts about the 100% auction and revenue directly to Californians.
CZ BRNO ZH202 - Cold War Combination Gun
1 week ago
2 comments:
"the (contrived) exhaustion" feels to me to be a euphemism for lets get another round of political contributions out of this controversy. I observe that how Obama has structured his legislative agenda is to maximize the fund raising for Congress . . . and claiming ANYTHING as success. Such is a very low bar, and looks like it is going to trip up this President.
Greg, that's an interesting point.
Post a Comment