Comments on: Climate Change and International Competitiveness http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/07/climate-change-and-international-competitiveness-waxman-markey-global-warming-bill/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:05:30 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Leoski http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/07/climate-change-and-international-competitiveness-waxman-markey-global-warming-bill/#comment-37853 Leoski Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:01:53 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5352#comment-37853 What I'm not yet reading about on this site is whether all the Capitol Hill focus will be on the potential costs (to rate payers/drivers) of such a bill in a time of economic insecurity. We need some version of this bill, tweaked or not, to get serious consideration pre-Copenhagen conference. But according to a recent Huffington Post piece, http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/04/how_democrats_can_win_the_clim.shtml the do-nothing(and worse) Republicans have set a trap to demonize cap and trade options and to drown out the more subtle and complex details of Waxman-Markey with fears of the taxes and price/rate increases that will be imposed on us. Of course, the strategic need for the US adopting such measures, to set the stage for a world agreement that brings that other big player (China) on board, is completely shrugged off in their political machinations. I'd appreciate Joe or anyone else to deconstruct the analysis in the above post, and clarify what the $150 billion dollar investment would be in that "Apollo" energy and green jobs measure. Or is this kind of stimulus something we do IN ADDITION to the proposed climate bill? Can objective economists and scientists (non-lobbyists) make a dent (never mind a splash) in the Washington discussion while it can make a difference? Likewise, can informed voters or citizens' groups? What could Obama say or do to put the right message out that would get people to see that changing our accounting of carbon's costs will be good for the economy long-term, and not cost too much now? There should a drive for a national consensus that real change must be made to "business as usual" beyond the reform of our financial credit markets. I apologize if I've drifted too far into partisan considerations here. [<em>JR: That analysis is old claptrap, which I don't waste much time debunking. Search "breakthrough institute" if you want to see what I've written on it. If you don't price carbon, you can't solve the problem. Plus Republicans hate big spending as much as a cap -- and they can demonize that too. It isn't EDF or NRDC that pushed one big climate and energy bill -- it was Waxman.</em>] What I’m not yet reading about on this site is whether all the Capitol Hill focus will be on the potential costs (to rate payers/drivers) of such a bill in a time of economic insecurity. We need some version of this bill, tweaked or not, to get serious consideration pre-Copenhagen conference. But according to a recent Huffington Post piece,
http://thebreakthrough.org/ blog/ 2009/ 04/ how_democrats_can_win_the_clim.shtml
the do-nothing(and worse) Republicans have set a trap to demonize cap and trade options and to drown out the more subtle and complex details of Waxman-Markey with fears of the taxes and price/rate increases that will be imposed on us. Of course, the strategic need for the US adopting such measures, to set the stage for a world agreement that brings that other big player (China) on board, is completely shrugged off in their political machinations.
I’d appreciate Joe or anyone else to deconstruct the analysis in the above post, and clarify what the $150 billion dollar investment would be in that “Apollo” energy and green jobs measure. Or is this kind of stimulus
something we do IN ADDITION to the proposed climate bill?
Can objective economists and scientists (non-lobbyists) make a dent (never mind a splash) in the Washington discussion while it can make a difference? Likewise, can informed voters or citizens’ groups? What could Obama say or do to put the right message out that would get people to see that changing our accounting of carbon’s costs will be good for the economy long-term, and not cost too much now? There should a drive for a national consensus that real change must be made to “business as usual” beyond the reform of our financial credit markets.
I apologize if I’ve drifted too far into partisan considerations here.

[JR: That analysis is old claptrap, which I don't waste much time debunking. Search "breakthrough institute" if you want to see what I've written on it. If you don't price carbon, you can't solve the problem. Plus Republicans hate big spending as much as a cap -- and they can demonize that too. It isn't EDF or NRDC that pushed one big climate and energy bill -- it was Waxman.]

]]> By: ecostew http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/07/climate-change-and-international-competitiveness-waxman-markey-global-warming-bill/#comment-37819 ecostew Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:47:29 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5352#comment-37819 New Report: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/Tyndall_Review_of_CCC_Report.pdf New Report:

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/ publications/ Tyndall_Review_of_CCC_Report.pdf

]]>