Originally Posted By Swamp Rat
Instead of auctioning permits to emit, Waxman-Markey gives 85% of them away, at least at first. This is staggeringly inefficient: permits would go to those with political clout rather than those who value them most. No one is proud of this – Mr Obama wanted a 100% auction – but House Democrats decided that the only way to pass the bill was to hand out billions of dollars of goodies to groups that might otherwise oppose it. (There was plenty of pork left over for its supporters, too.)

Herein lies the heart of the problem. I think there is genuine will from Obama and Australia’s present government to solve this problem, but there are a lot of conservative political forces and business interests that have to be satisfied simply in order to get any bill passed. At this stage, I have to say that I’m very pessimistic that we’ll be able to do enough – and soon enough – to solve this problem.

Still, “cap and dividend” does sound like a very good idea. Make sure you get well soon Swamp Rat!

Thanks for the Annie Leonard vid; always nice to see her take on things. I’ve been a sick puppy the last few days so I’ll respond more thoroughly when I feel better, but I wanted to share this news from the States on a new proposal offered by Washington State senator Maria Cantwell which she calls “cap and dividend”.

A couple of excerpts from the above mentioned Economist link:

“Under her bill, the government would impose a ceiling on carbon emissions each year. Producers and importers of fossil fuels will have to buy permits. The permits would be auctioned, raising vast sums of money. Most of that money would be divided evenly among all Americans. The bill would raise energy prices, of course, and therefore the price of everything that requires energy to make or distribute. But a family of four would receive perhaps $1000 a year, which would more than make up for it, reckons Ms Cantwell. Cap-and-dividend would set a price on carbon, thus giving Americans a powerful incentive to burn less dirty fuel. It would also raise the rewards for investing in clean energy. And it would leave all but the richest 20% of Americans—who use the most energy—materially better off, she says.

Of all the bills that would put a price on carbon, cap-and-dividend seems the most promising. (A carbon tax would be best of all, but has no chance of passing.)”

I wanted to throw it out there for the general discussion. I think most of us agree that a price needs to be put on carbon emissions generation but the devil is in the details so which plan can 1) have a positive effect and lower carbon emissions and 2) has a chance passage and becoming law.

Another point that needs to be made is that a country can’t tax its own carbon emitters while giving a free pass to good imported from other countries that bypass that same tax. It would penalize manufacturing in your own country while essentially subsidizing emissions from others.