Collins' and Cantwell's approach to limitation of greenhouse emissions is simple and effective. The government sells carbon production permits to CO2 producers and then distributes the proceeds to, well, everyone with a monthly dividend check. The quantity of permitted carbon production is ratcheted down on a defined schedule over the next 40 years to meet a defined set of emissions targets. The cost of energy would necessarily increase under this scheme, but for the majority of energy users, the increase would be mostly offset by the monthly cash dividend. Only the biggest energy hogs would feel the hurt. Also, there would be an incentive for all of us to become more energy-efficient, since reduced usage would free up more of that monthly money to use for other purposes.
According to McKibben, the Collins/Cantwell CLEAR bill has no suction in Washington right now. Many, including many of the larger environmental lobbying organizations, are throwing their weight behind the Graham-Kerry-Leiberman energy bill monstrosity that Sen. Kerry admits himself does little if anything to address climate change. Call it the politics of the possible. But just because it is possible to shovel a big burlap sack full of horse manure and plunk it in the middle of your living room doesn't mean it's desirable to do so. There is no reason that CLEAR should not appeal to the majority of average Americans--it is good for the environment and it pays cash money every month. There is equally little reason that the Graham-Kerry-Leiberman bill should appeal to anyone except possibly the energy industry who, while they actually would prefer no regulation whatsoever may feel that with the bill's passage, they have dodged a bullet--a CLEAR bullet.
I'll be back soon with a letter to my Senators on CLEAR. In the mean time I encourage you to write one of your own. Who do these guys and gals think they represent? Us? Or Big Coal and Big Oil?
No comments:
Post a Comment