Comments on: Moderate Senate Dems build ‘Gang of 16′ to influence cap-and-trade bill

By: John47

John47 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:02:49 +0000

But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. ,

By: Rob

Rob — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:10:08 +0000

“[JR: Not sure exactly what you are suggesting. Change the name of the blog?]”

No, she means the title that goes through the RSS feed, or the email subject maybe?

By: JCH

JCH — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:35:31 +0000

We are not poorer by 700 billion. The taxpayer is going to take ownership of a 700 billion in assets at a price substantially below what they once were.

That is in essence the problem. They are substantially devalued right now.

In the future they will sell them off – hopefully at least at break even, and perhaps, with a little luck, at a significant profit for the taxpayer.

The Resolution Trust took ownership of some 540 billion in assets – mostly real estate. They sold it in a big hurry at fire-sale prices. Even so, they were able to whittle the 540 billion, plus costs of disposal, down to a 124 billion-dollar cost to the taxpayer. It worked, and a financial calamity was averted. The government actually can do stuff fairly well.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:44:04 +0000

Instead of credits for no-till, consider credits for biochar application. About half of the biochar added as a soil conditioner remains ‘indefinitly”, which means longer than a few decades and likely at least several hundred years.

Here is an serious such suggestion in an Aussie report:

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/biocharscprs

By: Grace Horowitz

Grace Horowitz — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:14:58 +0000

I would strongly suggest that your daily newsletter include something more descriptive than Climate Progress. That way, I and I’m sure many other people would be more likely to read it. E.g. today your subject would be: “Moderate Senate Dems build ‘Gang of 16′ to influence cap-and-trade bill”.
–Grace

[JR: Not sure exactly what you are suggesting. Change the name of the blog?]

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:09:43 +0000

James Galbraith:

Despite the common use of language, the capital cost of this bill does not involve “taxpayer dollars.” It authorizes a financial transaction, exchanging good debt (U.S. Treasury bills and bonds) for bad debt (the “troubled assets”). Many of those troubled assets will continue to earn income for some time, perhaps a long time. The U.S. Treasury commits itself to paying the interest on the debts it issues. The net fiscal cost — which is also the net fiscal stimulus — of this bill is the difference between those two revenue streams. Given the very low rate of interest presently prevailing on Treasury bills, this is likely to be somewhere between $20 billion per year and zero from the beginning, even if the Treasury were to issue all $700 billion in new debt at once. It is a mistake, in short, to count the capital cost as a “cost to the taxpayer.”

This is not the war in Iraq. In the longer run, of course the Treasury will incur capital losses on the assets it acquires. The entire purpose of the bill is to overpay for bad assets, so as to give financial institutions a chance to recapitalize themselves.

By: nataraj

nataraj — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:15:21 +0000

Considering how badly the $700B wallstreet bailout was handled – I’ve no doubt a real global warming reduction bill will not be passed. What will be passed is a sham that lets some traders and lobbies make money.

Afterall now that we are poorer by $700B – there is no money for needed intervention in the markets – climate crisis nor for univeral healthcare.

The bailout bill has effectively killed any meaningful action on climate crisis.

By: rpauli

rpauli — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:20:29 +0000

This is Global Warming Legislation Theater,

All the votes in Congress mean nothing unless CO2 levels fall. And since it is such a lagging indicator, we cannot well connect carbon trading with any improved levels.

We need a rapid conversion to non-carbon energy.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:57:55 +0000

A bit OT, but did you notice in the bailout bill SEC. 117. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.
(a) Study- The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects.