Comments on: “A Con for Our Time”

By: darwin

darwin — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:17:05 +0000

In any con, there is the mark, who is being conned, and most cons involve misdirection. Those involved in the con hope to profit by it. That is the purpose of running a con. Who is the mark? What is the misdirection? What is the actual purpose — who is hoping to profit by duping the mark?

]]>

By: lucia

lucia — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:04:59 +0000

Raven–
If you are suggesting WM could be incrementally made worse, I agree with you. Interest groups will definitely lobby for more credits and increased limits.

]]>

By: C3H Editor

C3H Editor — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:50:50 +0000

“Since no one knows how to decarbonize an economy at rates of 4% or above per year over a period of decades”…..What is the highest, sustainable annual rate of decarbonization that is possible currently?

]]>

By: Raven

Raven — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:57:42 +0000

Lucia,
If W&M passes it may be impossible to repeal entirely but lobbying by various interest groups demanding more free credits and/or increased limits will further erode any carbon pricing mechanism.

Incidently, that is why all ‘carbon pricing’ mechanisms will ultimately fail because there will always be politically connected parties that are hurt by the rules that will be able to negotiate exemptions and/or special treatment. This, of course, will lead to even more requests for special treatment.

]]>

By: lucia

lucia — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:28:59 +0000

Dean–
I’m sure another bill will be drafted. I didn’t say I was sure it would be better. It might be better. It also might be worse!

If passed, I think the chance that WM will be replaced by a better bill anytime soon is nearly zero. Could I be wrong? Sure. But in the first place, one needs time to drum up support to create a better bill. Would anyone introduce the better bill next year? The year after? How would they justify the new bill to fix the freshly passed old one that hasn’t even been given a chance to prove everyone how horrible it is?

Also once enacted and in place for 1 or 2 years, there are going to be lots of traders with vested interests in maintaining the market in permits. I don’t think it’s going to be easy to get rid of it.

]]>

By: Jon Frum

Jon Frum — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:09:44 +0000

The object of the bill is not to raise tax revenues. The object of the bill is to seem to do something while doing nothing. The objects of the Congress is to get the kooks off their backs while doing nothing that would get themselves voted out of office by the rest of us.

In my opinion, that’s a good thing. The less they “do” about global warming, the better.

]]>

By: dean

dean — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:02:58 +0000

Lucia,

I don’t see how you can be so sure that a better bill will be written and introduced and pushed. Waxman is the Chair of the committee and one of the primary advocates in Congress for taking action, particularly among those in such a position of power. Will he write a new bill right away and be in a position to put this much energy in it? Will he also abandon the methods in this bill for a new one? Will Obama put energy into supporting a new bill or will he just focus on health care? It really doesn’t help much if a junior/freshman member of Congress pushes something better, because
they aren’t in a position to make it happen. In our system of government, if people in the right places don’t push it, it’s just a symbol.

I simply don’t see how anybody can be sure that the chance for replacing a climate bill that isn’t working well is so much worse than having to start from scratch. Maybe it will be, but how can you be sure?

]]>

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:09:39 +0000

-3-EDaniel

I don’t want to disturb your Zen-like state, however, CBO suggests that net revenues aren’t in the cards for this bill:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10262/hr2454.pdf

If the carbon allowance price is less than assumed it will be a net money loser with respect to the deficit.

]]>

By: EDaniel

EDaniel — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:55:31 +0000

Stay calm and repeat softly and slowly; The first three objectives of any Clean Climate Bill are (1) Tax Revenues, (2) Tax Revenues, and (3) Tax Revenues.

Then, Grasshopper, you shall attain a full understanding and a peaceful oneness with The Universe.

]]>

By: lucia

lucia — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:41:39 +0000

dean–I’m sure if WM doesn’t pass, another bill will be drafted. It’s even possible the next bill might be crafted so as to reduce CO2. In contrast, if WM passes, the chances of a bill that might actually achieve goals of those who want to reduce CO2 will be close to zero.

Given what a poor bill this is, watching political process unfold is a bit mind-boggling.

]]>