Climate & Energy

C.A.R.E. (Cap & Auction, Refund Everything)

Peter Barnes on cap-and-dividend in U.S. News & World Report

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.

Notable quotable

Bushism will endure

“There has occasionally been voiced the misimpression that a future administration will take a significantly different attitude towards climate than this administration.” — deputy national …

He rules their world

On the Drudge Report homepage right now: Gotta love those scare quotes.

Tough but fair criticism

BBC program on Kyoto offsets

The idea behind offsets is that you pay someone else to reduce emissions on your behalf when they can make the reductions more cheaply than you can. The leading offset method use to fight climate chaos is the Clean Development Mechanism. This is an extremely controversial topic, with many (including me) contending it does not work. The BBC has an excellent radio broadcast covering both sides of the controversy. The broadcaster concludes that offsets don't make sense. But he gives leading intelligent pro-CDM experts plenty of time to make their case. It is an example of a program that is, while not the least bit objective, still being fair.

LW post-mortem

Lieberman-Warner’s failure this year underdetermines next year’s efforts

I suppose as an enviro-blogger I’m supposed to have something insightful to say about the death of the Lieberman-Warner bill. Yet I find myself strangely …

Mere $45 trillion needed to tackle climate change, says IEA

A G8-backed goal to halve greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 would take a global clean-technology investment of merely $45 trillion, the International Energy Agency said in …

Special interested

Top Senate recipients of fossil-fuel money behind climate-bill stall tactics

The good folks over at (maybe we’re long-lost cousins …) put together an awesome interactive map detailing the connections between the fossil-fuel industries and …

Unfair and balanced

Is NYT’s Revkin pushing unjustified ‘balance’ in the Senate climate debate coverage?

I like and respect Andy Revkin a great deal. He is one of the best reporters on climate and certainly the most prolific climate journalist now that he has his Dot Earth blog. But I must take exception to his recent posting, "Climate Debate: Democracy In Action?" You would never know from his post that one side in the debate was desperately trying to save future generations from catastrophic warming and the other side was simply doing shameless political posturing. Here is how it opens:

Shenanigans in the House

Republicans try to stoke Dem discord on climate legislation in the House

Amidst the chaos in the Senate over climate legislation, Rep. Ed Markey introduced his climate legislation in the House on Thursday. House Republican Leader John …

Got 2.7 seconds?

We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.