- 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/
Completely agree. It is critical there is a basic price for Carbon so that everybody has an incentive to modify behavior.
ReplyDelete