During weeks of discussions in Cancun that wrapped up on Dec. 12, the world's governments achieved consensus on a set of substantive steps forward.
Despite the gloom-and-doom predictions that dominated the weeks and months leading up to Cancun, the talks must be judged a success. The Cancun Agreements represent a set of modest steps forward.
The key challenge of the Cancun climate talks is to continue the process of constructing a sound foundation for meaningful, long-term global action.
Economists and other policy analysts have noted that policies intended to foster climate-friendly technology research and development will also be necessary, but likewise will not be sufficient on their own.
A new report presents false substitutes to a carbon pricing policy, which are nonetheless requisite complements to that essential policy.
Cap-and-trade has been demonized by conservatives as part of an effective strategy to stop climate legislation from moving forward in the U.S. Congress.This unfortunate tarnishing of market-based instruments for environmental protection will come back to haunt conservatives and liberals alike when it becomes politically difficult to use the power of the marketplace to reduce business costs in the pursuit of a wide variety of environmental objectives.
The time has not yet come to throw in the towel regarding the possible enactment in 2010 of meaningful economy-wide climate change policy (such as that found in the Waxman-Markey legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in June, 2009, or the more recent Kerry-Lieberman proposal in the Senate). Meaningful action of some kind is still possible, or at least conceivable. But with debates regarding national climate change policy becoming more acrimonious in Washington as midterm elections approach, it is important to ask, what are the real options for climate policy in the United States — not only in …
As with the Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454), passed by the House of Representatives last June, there is now some confusing commentary in the press and blogosphere about the allocation of allowances in the new Senate proposal — the American Power Act of 2010 — sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.). As before, the mistake is being made of confusing the share of allowances that are freely allocated versus auctioned with (the appropriate analysis of) the actual incidence of the allowance value, that is, who ultimately benefits from the allocation and auction revenue. In this essay, I …
In just a few days, Sens. John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman will release their much-anticipated proposal for comprehensive climate and energy legislation — the best remaining shot at forging a bipartisan consensus on this issue in 2010. Their proposal has many strengths, but there’s an issue brewing that could undermine its effectiveness and drive up its costs. I wrote about this in a Boston Globe op-ed on Earth Day, April 22. Government officials from California, New England, New York, and other northeastern states are vociferously lobbying in Washington to retain their existing state and regional systems for reducing …
We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.