Climate Politics

American Lung Association teams with enviros on clean air policy

The American Lung Association would like to remind you that air pollution is not only warming the planet, but it’s also bad for your health. The group released their Agenda for Clean Air [PDF] on Wednesday with a coalition of environmental groups, including Clean Air Watch. The report comes just a day after the association […]

Washington's cap-and-trade legislation gutted by Senate committee

So remember how I was all "your days are numbered, pollutey companies of Washington state! mwahaha" because the cap-and-trade bill "whizzed" through the House committee? Yeah, I might have spoken too soon, because not so much with the Senate version.

The Committee on Environment, Water, and Energy yesterday passed a version of the bill that makes the program voluntary, which kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Still, hopeful enviros are quick to note that it's a "work in progress." Sigh.

Coen brothers shoot an ad busting the ‘clean coal’ myth

The Reality Coalition is at it again. This time, they recruited the Coen Brothers to shoot an ad debunking the “clean coal” myth: The Coens are also shooting a second ad for the campaign, due out soon.

Congressional leaders call for capitol plant to can coal days before big protest

Several thousand people are expected to gather on Monday for a massive protest at the coal-fired plant that provides power to the U.S. Capitol. Organizers from Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Rainforest Action Network, and Greenpeace anticipate that it will be the largest display of civil disobedience against global warming in United States history. Today, however, […]

The projected revenue from cap-and-trade auctions is strikingly low

Hey, look, the New York Times and the Washington Post have decided it's significant that Obama's budget includes carbon auction revenue! I guess people are allowed to talk about it now. A good start might be reading my post on the subject from three $%@^! days ago. (Yes, I'm aware bitterness is unattractive.)

There are a few notable features of the treatment of cap-and-trade in the just-released budget proposal. I'll break it up into a few posts.

First, the projected revenue seems strikingly low. Partly this is a function of the fact that the targets themselves, particularly in the short term, are fairly weak -- 14 percent under 2005 levels by 2020, 83 percent by 2050. (Sane climate policy would reduce emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, at least.)

Still, the proposal explicitly says that the administration expects 100 percent of the permits to be auctioned off. As Kate noted, the CBO estimated (PDF) that "the value of those allowances could total between $50 billion and $300 billion annually (in 2006 dollars) by 2020." The administration's estimate -- $83 billion a year by 2020 -- is well at the bottom end of those projections.

My guess -- apparently confirmed by "senior White House officials" who don't invite me to their conference calls -- is that this is simple conservatism. The inclusion of any carbon revenue at all is sure to spark controversy, so they're simply being cautious not to lay too ambitious a marker. It's possible both the targets and the revenue could be boosted in the course of Congressional sausage-making, though color me somewhat pessimistic about that.

L.A. solar vote could measure nation’s appetite for renewables

Next week Los Angeles voters will vote on an ambitious solar energy plan that would add solar panels on rooftops and parking lots across the city and require the city’s energy utility to rapidly increase the amount of solar power it uses. The vote could give a snapshot of public support for renewable energy, just […]

The myth of the universal market … debunked!

Communication among economists, other social scientists, natural scientists, and lawyers is far from perfect. When the topic is the environment, discourse across disciplines is both important and difficult. Economists themselves have likely contributed to some misunderstandings about how they think about the environment, perhaps through enthusiasm for market solutions, perhaps by neglecting to make explicit all of the necessary qualifications, and perhaps simply by the use of technical jargon.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are several prevalent and very striking myths about how economists think about the environment. Because of this, my colleague Don Fullerton, a professor of economics at the University of Illinois, and I posed the following question in an article in Nature: how do economists really think about the environment? In this and several succeeding postings, I'm going to answer this question, by examining several of the most prevalent myths.

One myth is that economists believe that the market solves all problems. Indeed, the "first theorem of welfare economics" states that private markets are perfectly efficient on their own, with no interference from government, so long as certain conditions are met. This theorem, easily proven, is exceptionally powerful, because it means that no one needs to tell producers of goods and services what to sell to which consumers. Instead, self-interested producers and self-interested consumers meet in the marketplace, engage in trade, and thereby achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, as if "guided by an invisible hand," as Adam Smith wrote in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations. This notion of maximum general welfare is what economists mean by the "efficiency" of competitive markets.

Opportunity for a defining moment

The inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States is a defining moment in American history. For most Americans and countless others around the world, this is an inspiring political transition. The question we must face, however, is whether compelling inspiration will lead to effective action. As I wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed (November 12, 2008) one week after election day, environment and energy issues -- particularly climate change policy -- provide a microcosm of the forces that are shaping and will shape the actions of the new administration and Congress.

About eight years ago, President-elect George W. Bush promised to be President for all the people, not just those who had voted him into office. Bush's ability as Texas governor to bridge differences across the political aisle provided cause for optimism.

But hope for a centrist and sensible presidency dissolved under the influence of White House political operative Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney. The Bush Administration moved not to the center, but toward solidifying its base on the political right. Nowhere was this more apparent than in energy and environmental policy, with Vice President Cheney running energy policy, and EPA Administrator Christie Whitman virtually driven from office.

Obama’s first budget includes green spending and anticipated revenues from a climate plan

President Barack Obama on Thursday outlined his first proposed budget, notably including billions of dollars for renewable energy investments and taking into account billions in expected revenues from a carbon pricing scheme. In his remarks on Thursday, Obama also reaffirmed his directive to Congress to send him legislation putting a price on carbon. The “climate […]

Salazar withdraws leases for oil shale development

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Wednesday reversed the Bush administration’s move to open up tens of thousands of acres in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to oil-shale development, the latest in a series of energy policy overhauls out of his department. Salazar — who as a senator was the most vocal opponent of the Bush administration’s […]