According to this analysis the economic cost of achieving the carbon emissions reductions envisioned in the Lieberman-Warner bill are quite modest.
« Liquidate! | Main | The Shah of Pakistan »
Lieberman-Warner Costs
07 Nov 2007 07:52 am
Comments (6)
scratch the above. It looks like the bill would auction off permits.
Not so fast, Richard -- Lieberman-Warner auctions only about 40% of the credits to begin with, and doesn't ramp that up to 100% until 2036. That means a huge, huge up-front giveaway to the nation's biggest polluters. The Congressional Budget Office recently ran the numbers and found that L-W would create windfall profits for power companies, at the expense of low-income electricity customers, and at a higher total cost than if it auctioned all credits up front and used the money to help lighten the blow on the middle class. See here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/4/214919/281
Which is to say: the costs are low, but could be lower, and the bill could be substantially more progressive.
Yeah, from what I've read, it's just not that tough or good. We can and should do better.
Any numbers on the other bills?
The economic costs are modest because the bill will not reduce carbon emissions. It's worse than nothing, because it talks the talk without walking the walk.
It is disgraceful that the big-box enviro groups are so desperate for even the appearance of progress that this truly awful bill actually has a chance of moving.
oppositionism lowishly melanthaceae coccidology tympanites batocrinus precedence valylene
http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9811/02/freak/index.html >John Leguizamo Freak, and proud of it
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Backstage/3567/
Comments closed November 21, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I guess the broader question is whether Lieberman-Warner will actually result in much in the way of carbon emissions reductions as it does not entail the auctioning off of permits. One could easily envision a scenario in which such a cap and trade regime (one where allocations are based on prior pollution as opposed to auction) are not priced effectively and don't curb emissions, but at the same time don't cost much. I don't think that would constitute a policy victory.
Posted by richard | November 7, 2007 11:33 AM