Comments on: EPA Analysis of Waxman-Markey: “Returning the revenues in [a lump-sum rebate] could make the median household, and those living at lower ends of the income distribution, better off than they would be without the program” http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/waxman-markey-epa-analysis/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:48:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Cyril R. http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/waxman-markey-epa-analysis/#comment-40797 Cyril R. Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:09:08 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5838#comment-40797 Sending the money to developing countries is not without difficulties and controversies. Adapting to climate change has little value besides climate protection. While some adaptation will be necessary to avoid current climattic damages, this shouldn't be anywhere near that expensive (100 billion a year is a lot of money). If it goes to accellerating clean energy and advanced energy efficiency in those countries, that may be an excellent plan. Stop the problem at the source and get reliable, afforable clean energy in return. But giving most of it back in the form of lump sum transfer will greatly help in acceptance from the US public. Having a great climate bill for the world's poor is no good if there is no broad public support (ie if it won't get passed in the end). This is what we should take into consideration. I think at least 80% and preferably 90% should be returned in lump sum transfer to all US citizens with a bank account. The same $ for everyone. Simple and effective, and it will greatly help addressing overall income equity in the US (a seriously underestimated issue). I'd rather see a seperate mechanism, something like the CDM, for accellerating energy efficiency and renewables in developing countries, and a seperate program for dedicated adaptation measures there. Some of the other 10% could be reserved for that. The rest may go to RD&D, to try out some wild card technologies that are risky but potentially disruptive. And maybe 1 percent or so would be used for paying for the scheme (monitoring, administrative costs etc). Sending the money to developing countries is not without difficulties and controversies. Adapting to climate change has little value besides climate protection. While some adaptation will be necessary to avoid current climattic damages, this shouldn’t be anywhere near that expensive (100 billion a year is a lot of money). If it goes to accellerating clean energy and advanced energy efficiency in those countries, that may be an excellent plan. Stop the problem at the source and get reliable, afforable clean energy in return.

But giving most of it back in the form of lump sum transfer will greatly help in acceptance from the US public. Having a great climate bill for the world’s poor is no good if there is no broad public support (ie if it won’t get passed in the end). This is what we should take into consideration. I think at least 80% and preferably 90% should be returned in lump sum transfer to all US citizens with a bank account. The same $ for everyone. Simple and effective, and it will greatly help addressing overall income equity in the US (a seriously underestimated issue).

I’d rather see a seperate mechanism, something like the CDM, for accellerating energy efficiency and renewables in developing countries, and a seperate program for dedicated adaptation measures there. Some of the other 10% could be reserved for that. The rest may go to RD&D, to try out some wild card technologies that are risky but potentially disruptive. And maybe 1 percent or so would be used for paying for the scheme (monitoring, administrative costs etc).

]]> By: Thomas http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/waxman-markey-epa-analysis/#comment-40787 Thomas Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:21:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5838#comment-40787 The revenues should go where they are needed the most and where the people are the most deserving of assistance in adapting to climate change: developing nations. The revenues should go where they are needed the most and where the people are the most deserving of assistance in adapting to climate change: developing nations.

]]> By: jorleh http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/waxman-markey-epa-analysis/#comment-40774 jorleh Wed, 22 Apr 2009 04:35:14 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5838#comment-40774 Fine, fine, fine. And remember: every KWh done without foreign fossil fuel can be counted to be net income. Fine, fine, fine. And remember: every KWh done without foreign fossil fuel can be counted to be net income.

]]> By: Dean http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/waxman-markey-epa-analysis/#comment-40772 Dean Wed, 22 Apr 2009 04:19:19 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5838#comment-40772 I wonder about the impact on rural communities, where alternatives are more problematic. I wonder about the impact on rural communities, where alternatives are more problematic.

]]> By: Sasparilla http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/waxman-markey-epa-analysis/#comment-40764 Sasparilla Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:16:59 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5838#comment-40764 Great news, although I'd like it better if it wasn't coming within the Administration - not because I don't believe it, just that it would look more legitimate. Great news, although I’d like it better if it wasn’t coming within the Administration – not because I don’t believe it, just that it would look more legitimate.

]]>