I recently found a pretty good NYT Magazine article on oil production. It's definitely worth a read, if for no other reason than as a reminder of how much things have changed since the article was written in 2005. For example, on page 1 comes the quaint statement: If consumption begins to exceed production by even a small amount, the price of a barrel of oil could soar to triple-digit levels. Yes ... yes it could. Here's another one:
Reihan Salam writes an incredibly disappointing, and boggling, blog post here, on his preferred strategies for dealing with climate change. Disappointing, because if Reihan, one of the best conservative writers out there, doesn’t get the …
A quick post-mortem on this week's vote on the Climate Security Act, which was pulled from the Senate floor on Friday after its sponsors fell short of the 60 votes needed to proceed to final debate. I think I can safely sum it up in one word: progress.
McCain's statement on Lieberman-Warner said this: ... it appears that for now, the Senate, at the direction of the Majority Leader, will choose to put politics above policy, and Congress will fail to act yet again on this critical issue. You cannot be serious! The people who put politics above policy were McCain's fellow conservatives, who Forced 30 hours of pointless debate Forced a 9-hour reading of the bill Demagogued the gasoline and energy price issue over and over again Denied the reality of climate science Voted to block the bill from moving forward That's why Congress failed to act. And, of course, Bush said he would veto the bill anyway. Where or when did the straight talk express derail? This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Revkin speculates that Barnes' proposal is a way to break the deadlock stopping climate change legislation. I think he may be right. Tax emissions. (Or cap them and auction permits.) Refund the revenue to everybody. It has the following political advantages: It is simple and easy to understand. It puts a price on emissions without really penalizing anybody. It is a no-hair-shirt solution. This last point is worth emphasizing. It does not punish consumers, because the increased prices they pay are made up for by the dividend check. It does not really punish fossil fuel companies, because the tax they pay gets passed along to customers who have new money to pay those increased prices. Of course, fossil fuel companies do lose, as people use less of their product, but that is not punishment; it is an inevitable result of their selling a product whose side effects can no longer be tolerated. Since it will take time to phase out fossil fuels, oil and coal companies are free to use the time tax-and-dividend gives them to make the transition to other businesses, perhaps by expanding the investments they have already made in wind and solar. I'm going to post soon on why I think the people who think tax-and-dividend (or any mechanism depending on price) can be the sole, or even main, solution are wrong. Price is insufficient by itself; public investment and rule-based regulation have to remain the primary solutions. But price is not avoidable as part of the solution.
Another sharp new piece from the American News Project:
Dedicated to the coal and nuclear industries: Lorrie Morgan's What Part of No Don't You Understand? Dedicated to Scott McClellan: Randy Travis' Pray for the Fish:
OK, so the long-dead B-L-W bill got propped up and dragged around for a few days. (Tagline: B-L-W may be dead, but it's the life of the party!) But I think the debate was quite useful for two reasons: The opponents of (even modest) action played and overplayed their cards. Now we know that the health and well-being of future generations is of no interest in them. Now we know what their primary arguments will be. This is the opportunity for progressives and moderates and hopefully President Obama to design a better messaging strategy -- and to get pro cap-and-trade businesses to weigh in. The many flaws in the bill (other than the fact it wouldn't actually save the climate) were exposed: not enough money returned to taxpayers, too much money given away to too many groups, too complicated, your flaw here -- I'd very much like to hear your ideas for how the bill could be simplified and improved. I will be offering my recommendations for what a better bill would look like later this month. Clearly, the bill should be designed to achieve more reductions and to be easier to explain and defend. After all, the original Weekend at Bernie's was kind of fun and made money. But did anybody actually see (and enjoy) Weekend at Bernie's 2? We don't want a lame remake next year.
Peter Barnes' proposal is popping up everywhere these days, most recently in U.S. News and World Report. The idea is simple: Put a cap on emissions, and divide that cap into permits. Sell those permits upstream -- mostly to just a few hundred fossil fuel producers and importers. They in turn will pass the cost of those permits on to consumers. Divide the revenue from the auctions among consumers, which makes up for the higher prices. Read the article for details. Update: "Rebate" changed to "Refund" as GreyFlcn suggested.
We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.