A simple, "elegant" proposal for a climate bill in the US? Kudos to Maria Cantwell.

Over the past few months recognition has been growing for a climate bill, the CLEAR bill, proposed by Maria Cantwell (Senator for WA). The proposal gets a lot of things right:

• It is simple - at under 40 pages it shows the current Waxman-Markey bill up for the many-headed monster that it is. The government will set annual limits on carbon emissions and the require fossil fuel producers and importers (upstream carbon emitters such as electricity producers) to buy permits. The revenues raised are returned to the taxpayer (75%) and used to develop alternative energy sources (25%). It avoids the trap of trying to regulate (and therefore measure) carbon emissions by every little industry.
• It sets a price on carbon, unlike the W-M bill which, ludicrously, gives 85% of the permits away. As the Economist neatly summarizes "The bill would raise energy prices of course and therefore the price of everthing that requires energy to make or distribute". THAT IS THE POINT. Without this price signal there is no incentive to modify behaviour, but the dividend should ensure that taxpayers are compensated without removing that incentive.

There has been so much rather depressing news on the climate change front recently - expecially when it comes to international action. It is encouraging to be reminded that actually so much is happening at local and in this case national levels. Maria Cantwell has also managed to get Republican support, her co-sponsor is Susan Collins of Maine. I assume there has been plenty of local buzz about this in Seattle, but getting noticed by the Lexington column in the Economist suggests that the bill is gaining significant momentum. Let's hope so.

http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15453166

Take a look at a summary of the proposal here;

http://cantwell.senate.gov/issues/Inside%20Energy%20on%20CLEAR%20Act%209%2021%2009.pdf

Also, look at The Grist

http://www.grist.org/article/cantwells-climate-bill-gathers-steam/

Tony Blair - the sequel

I don't think anyone expected anything different, especially after Alistair Campbell's unrepentant performance at the Chilcot inquiry, but Blair's smug self-belief (not least in his own ability to manipulate the arguments to suit his purpose)was galling. Steve Richards in the Times on Saturday hit the nail on the head; the inquiry members focussed on arguments that have been picked over ad nauseam (did he lie in the presentation of the intelligence, was the war legal) rather than focussing on the basis for his original judgement that it was Britain's role to side unwaveringly with the US, come what may.
For me, the moment when Blair became seduced by Bush was on the occasion of Bush's speech to Joint Congress on September 20th, 2001. It was a magnificent speech (kudos to the writer) containing the memorable sentence; "Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or justice to our enemies, justice will be done". Blair was watching from the gallery and positively puffed up with pride when Great Britain was singled out for specific mention and he was personally thanked for coming ("Thank you for coming friend") From that point on it was more important to Blair to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US than to act in the best interests of Britain. (The comparison with reality TV contestants competing to be BFF with Paris Hilton springs to mind) Unfortunately his initial judgement (that 9/11 changed everything regarding policy towards Iraq) was not questioned in detail, and it should have been. Blair's stock response that "it was a judgement that I took", as though that absolves him from all responsibility, is simply not good enough. What are we supposed to say - oh, that's all right then? When a CEO of a company makes an equivalent error of judgement he is usually fired. Why should the Prime Minister of Great Britain not be held to a similar standard?
There is so much to find disturbing in Blair's testimony. But for me, perhaps the most disturbing was his assertion that "It is important for a British Prime Minister to establish a strong and close relationship with the President of the United States". Based on his actions, what he meant by this was that it is important to reassure the President of the United States that we are always, unquestionably and unquestioningly in his camp. Again, how is this in the national interests of Great Britain? Much as I like and admire America and Americans it's time for British Prime Ministers to wise up and realise that Great Britain's best interests lie not in playing kid brother to the mighty US, but in acting like a grown up in the EU.