Carbon offsets, if implemented correctly, are a vehicle way of reducing emissions in sectors that can’t be easily capped (agriculture, etc) as well as in areas (developing countries) where profit motive more often than not trumps weakly enforced government regulations.

Also, to call Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism a failure is frankly not true. This is a three year old market. It was created from scratch from a concept barely conceived before 10 years ago, and there are certainly key learnings that continue to instruct the UN executive board. The program has been a driver of emissions reductions, clean technology transfer, and cost reduction for developing countries in Kyoto Protocol. In 2008, the market volumes for CDM was 1.6 billion tonnes—not an inconsequential amount.

Finally, whatever legislation passes congress, it will need to be a consensus document that has support from some Republicans, utilities, energy consumers, and, yes, even perhaps economists. What USCAP is looking to create such a document. Carbon offsets are a key cost reduction mechanism. Looking at the latest Pew research, it’s clear the economy is foremost on voter’s minds.

In the end, debate about carbon offsets is a great thing, and I agree that much needs to be reformed domestically and with CDM. However, to put the carbon offset debate into “black and white” is not the best approach.

I love this blog, and obviously I read it, but I would challenge you to provide a better, more innovative cost-containment provision, which has the powerful ability to reduce emissions and put food on peoples’ plates.

Blogs often provide a strong incentive to take extreme positions, and to try to coin phrases and terms, so that they can gain national currency and notoriety for the author. I would put it to you to resist that urge.

He does not like permit giveaways because the permits have value and why should wealth be transfered to the polluters; he does not like offsets because they undermine the integrity of the carbon market; and he doesn’t like cap and spend because he does not believe that government should grow as a part of climate legislation.

This makes sense, so Senator Corker’s position is increasingly in harmony with many advocates who believe that the politically smart way to get a strong declining cap that matches the science is with cap and dividend.

See http://www.capanddividend.org to learn more.

Sorry that was Bob Corker and not Dan Corker.

Dan Corker was the Senator who torpedoed the The Detroit Auto low interest loan (bailout) of December.*

*Corker’s state of Tennessee is home to two Nissan auto plants and a VW plant soon to be built in his native town of Chattanooga.