Articles by Joseph Romm

Sen. Corker criticizes USCAP climate plan

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has circulated a letter critical of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (see here) [PDF]:

It appears their blueprint promotes many of the same problematic provisions that have plagued cap-and-trade bills in the past.

Duh! He writes:

I believe that we should auction a vast majority -- if not all -- of the allowances and send 100 percent of those revenues back to consumers

Well, I'd probably send 60 percent to 80 percent back, at least at first, rising eventually to 80 percent to 90 percent. No need to give money back to the Warren Buffets, whereas you do need some money, at least in the first decade, for heavily impacted industries, worker transition, cleantech R&D, and the like.

I am also opposed to the inclusion of international and domestic offsets as proposed by various cap-and-trade proponents and last year's legislation. Such provisions compromise the strength of the market system and call into question the integrity of emission reductions. Offsets are created when projects or activities reduce emissions from a source not regulated under a cap-and-trade program (e.g. capturing methane from a landfill). The use of offset projects is another big problem with the EU system that we should avoid. There are serious questions about the integrity of many of these projects, and it is difficult to determine whether these projects would have occurred anyway, regardless of the project developers' incentive to make money off their reductions. A workable cap-and-trade system must be simple and direct. International and domestic offsets with complicated diminish the effectiveness of such a program.

Can't argue with that! Nor is this new stuff from him (see here) -- so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he isn't saying this as a way to set up the bill for failure or at least for him to vote against the final bill, which will inevitably have some rip-offsets.

Greenwire printed that letter in its article on "Pelosi sees cap-and-trade floor debate this year" ($ub. req'd, reprinted below). I think it would be a mistake to have the House floor debate prematurely since we can almost certainly get a stronger bill next year -- but only if the Administration does the necessary foundation-building this year (see here -- Parts 2 and 3 will elaborate on this next week).

Pelosi does leave open the possibility of a floor vote at the end of the year, before Copenhagen, which may be the best compromise, since the House can probably pass a stronger bill than the Senate:

Obama halts Bush's final rules

In one of his first acts, President Barack Obama, through his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, "ordered a halt to all pending federal regulations until the new White House team conducts a legal and policy review of the last-minute Bush administration rules," E&E Daily reports ($ub. req'd).

It also turns out that Congress, with simply majorities, can toss any rule within 60 legislative days -- and that goes as far back as "May or June 2008."

Regulation junkies -- you know who you are -- can read Emanuel's memo here [PDF].

Reports E&E Daily:

Rahm Emanuel's memo could lead to the reversal of dozens of energy and environmental measures advanced in Bush's waning days, including standards addressing mountaintop mining, air pollution permits, logging in the West, an exemption for factory farms from Superfund reporting requirements and endangered species.

The story concludes with background and more details:

With Fiat's technology, Chrysler will build more small and midsize cars

Some commenters suggested my earlier post, "Chrysler to electrify entire product line," should have been filed under "humor." How was the company going to survive the current collapse of the auto industry, let alone find the money to invest in green cars?

But now the NYT reports:

The Italian automaker Fiat agreed on Tuesday to take a 35 percent stake in the struggling American auto company Chrysler, which was forced last month to seek a federal bailout amid fears it might not survive.

And, as the article notes, this creates a real eco-opportunity for Chrysler:

Eight more environmental Bushisms

George W. Bush is, by far, the greatest mistake ever made by the American people -- or was that by Gore for running such an inadequate campaign, or by Ralph Nader for running at all or at least by one idiot in South Florida who designed the butterfly ballot, or by the Supreme Court (Note to self: let it go, let it go, let it go, on this day of all days).

It is amusing to read the delusionary op-eds of conservatives who think Bush's legacy will be determined by Iraq, and therefore Bush will be vindicated and rehabilitated by history. Not!

Even if we could forget Katrina, torture, Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and the worst economy since the great depression, his legacy, with a near-absolute certainty, will be set by his policy of wanton climate destruction (see "the Worst President in American History") -- unless, of course, Barack Obama can somehow put us on a truly sustainable path, but that rejection of everything Bush stood for will hardly rehabilitate W. Quite the reverse.

Anyway, the real point of this final post on Bush -- final at least until the media or the Obama team uncover yet another unbelievable environmentally destructive thing he did that we are as yet unaware of -- is to share a list of eight environmental Bushisms I just found to make my list of the top 25 Bushisms of all time complete: