Wednesday, May 10, 2006

House Panel Backs Mandatory Emissions Cap

From Greenwire (subscription required):

The influential House Appropriations Committee went on record this afternoon in support of addressing global warming through a mandatory cap on U.S. emissions. The Republican-led panel accepted a nonbinding climate change amendment that endorses capping greenhouse gas emissions as long as the program does not harm the U.S. economy. The amendment also requires participation from international trading partners.
More later...

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

2 comments:

Starvid, Sweden said...

Whatever you do, don't implement an emissions trading system like we have in the EU. It only creates more volatility in power prices. If you do, make sure pollution rights are auctioned, not handed out.

Anyway, a federal CO2 tax is a lot smarter than emission trading. Less bureacracy and less volatility. And it makes it possible to tax gasoline too.

The money should go directly to the elimination of payroll taxes, so that the government does not become needlessly big, and also to compensate the poor for Buschco's unjust tax breaks for the rich.

------------------------------------

Or you could go absolutely French, volontariste, dirigiste, statist and use the money for 300 new state owned nuclear reactors, a continent spanning power grid and a massive TGV railroad system. :) :) :)

Paul Primavera said...

Starvid,

The issue of the tax cuts supported by President Bush is not all black and white. An interesting discussion on this was broadcast on the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio earlier today:

< http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/ >

The Cato Institute has some really good studies of taxation in the US:

Tax Policy
< http://www.cato.org/fiscal/tax-policy.html >

Corporate Welfare
< http://www.cato.org/fiscal/corporate-welfare.html >

Federal Budget Policy
< http://www.cato.org/fiscal/budget-policy.html >

I think, however, that we can agree that the "borrow and spend" policy of the neo-conservatives is as injurious (if not more so) to long term American economic health as the the "tax and spend" policies of the liberal democrats.

If we borrow much more, then there will be nothing left for "300 new state owned nuclear reactors, a continent spanning power grid and a massive TGV railroad system"

:( :( :(

Seriously, though, at least in the US, private industry generally runs nukes a lot better than the govt. I used to work at a nuke owned and operated by NYPA, the state power organization for New York State. Then the plant got bought by Entergy. As a corporation, Entergy (ETR) is able to run a nuke a lot better than NYPA was (our capacity factor is a heck of a lot better under ETR than NYPA) - I have lived through it [and I still remain mgt's biggest critic - a happy sailor is a whining sailor!].

Lastly, what I have found amusing in a perverse sort of way is that if we had spend on new nukes what we have already spent in Iraq, then we would now be well on our way to energy independence and could thus let the Islamic fascists drown in their own oil.