2008 Hillary Releases Energy Plan; Frontrunners Have Shifted the Climate Debate
posted by on November 6 at 11:30 AM
Hillary Clinton released her energy plan yesterday, and—like the other frontrunners’ plans—it’s pretty awesome, with a few caveats that I’ll get to in a minute. Because the Edwards, Obama, and Clinton plans are so similar, I’ll just run through what they would do and explain the minor differences at the end.
The good news: All three plans would implement a fully-auctioned cap-and-trade system, aiming for 80 percent emissions reductions by 2050. What that means, briefly: In a cap-and-trade system, the government establishes an overall cap on carbon emissions. Under that cap, all emissions are divided up into credits that represent permission to pollute. Companies are free to buy and sell pollution credits in the marketplace. A 100-percent-auctioned system forces companies to pay for every ton of emissions they produce—creating a market-based incentive to reduce emissions through innovation.
A few differences between the candidates: Obama would use the revenues from pollution credits to develop clean energy and expand programs to help low-income people pay their electric bills. Clinton would invest revenues in energy efficiency programs and assistance to low- and middle-income families. And Edwards would invest the proceeds from his cap-and-trade system in clean energy. Both Clinton and Edwards would repeal subsidies to oil companies. Edwards would also share US technology with developing nations in exchange for binding commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions; negotiate a new international treaty on climate change; and increase fuel-efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon. Additionally, Edwards would create incentives for states to plan smart growth and transit-oriented development, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and encourage public transportation use—something neither of the other two Democratic frontrunners have made a top priority.
The disappointing aspect of all the plans is their reliance on biodiesel and so-called “clean coal”, two heavily subsidized industries that are completely unsustainable and an oxymoron, respectively.
That said, the really amazing thing about all these plans is how far they all go in terms of promoting efficiency, funding alternative energy sources, capping pollution, and cracking down on industry. Fully auctioned cap-and-trade used to be a pipe dream; now it’s the conventional line from the three mainstream Democratic candidates. At the same time, the “green gap” between Republicans and Democrats has become a national embarrassment. As TerraPass writer Adam Stein puts it, climate change “wraps together energy policy, economic considerations, and even national security concerns in a way that doesn’t fit comfortably into the old frames of conservation and regulation.”
You're either on the pro-America side that wants to make sure America is not sending US dollars to al-Qaeda thru Saudi Arabia and Iraq - or you're a big oil/gas proponent who hates America.
It's that simple.
That said, wouldn't a carbon tax be simpler to administer and harder to avoid, and make it obvious who's patriotic and who hates America?
Sometimes I take Excedrin before finishing Will in Seattle's comments.
And the money! The money! We're so good at technology and we could be the world leader in developing it and selling it to the rest of the world, particularly China, provided they don't all die from their horrific pollution beforehand. Rather than protecting polluting industries, which are the 21st Century equivalent of the horse and buggy, we'll promote clean technologies.
A carbon tax a/k/a a direct pollution tax is the way to go. Bloomberg proposed it recently. Hummer owners pay more. Those who drive more, pay more. Those who spew CO2 from their coal factories, pay more.
Or, we could decide we want to be responsible for more global warming, by subsidizing carbon emitters...as in voting to spend billions on new road lanes....
I wuv you too.
Remember, people laughed at cap-and-trade - and even the EU is shifting to a carbon tax.
Ah, Erica. Master of the incorrect sweeping generalization. Read one article about the horrors of Malaysian palm oil plantations, and suddenly all biodiesel is unsustainable.
This conveniently ignores the fact you can make biodiesel from waste cooking oil, a source sustainable as long as people like fried foods; algae that can feed on carbon-neutral sewage or CO2 from coal power stations, which may not be CO2 neutral, but at least doubles the productivity per carbon.
But, hey, why be informed when you can be PC?
Cap and trade just encourage more efficient production of energy, without addressing consumption. Because you don't get anything for not using energy in the first place, only for generating power with less pollution. Whereas a carbon tax tax would reward both conservation and cleaner production.
Cap and trade would not discourage sprawl, because there's no carbon credits to sell from moving closer to work, or locating your offices in a central location instead of cheap exurb real estate.
A tax is also very simple: carbon costs. Reduced carbon costs less. Whereas cap and trade requires a very complex round of horse trading to see who gets how many credits, and constant lobbying over when you lower the cap.
For further reading on carbon tax v. cap'n'trade, this piece is pretty interesting, and fairly evenhanded for something published under the aegis of the Cato Institute.
Exactly, elenchos, which is why the EU is moving towards a carbon tax from cap and trade.
i'd like to see a citation on "unsustainable" biodiesel.
Fischer-Tropsch, baby!
The short version of what is unsustainable about biodiesel is that conventional farming uses so much petroleum -- fuel and fertilizer -- that we are basically turning oil into food. So turning oil in into biodiesel is obviously stupid. And supposedly we need all that land for food.
But who said biodiesel should be farmed conventionally? Who said we should use so much land for cattle and cattle feed instead of grain and biodiesel?
And of course, the whole point of a biodiesel subsidy is to develop both the industry and the technology for the future. You would cancel the subsidy not because it's unsustainable now, but rather because you were convinced that it will never be sustainable.
Dr. Science Jonathan Golob makes the same mistake criticizing hybrid cars, not seeing them as an investment in developing the technology for the future, and only judging them on how well they work today.
Oh God. I think "cap'n'trade vs. carbon tax" debate is shaping up to become next year's Prop 1-style "good being the enemy of great." And *that* one isn't even over yet!
I think I'm going to hurl.
(Carbon tax is better/smarter, but either would be 100 FUCKING percent better then what we have right now.)
12:
It really depends on the feedstock. This report looks at the lifecycle energy balance of canola biodiesel, and concludes it produces 2.5 units of energy for every 1 of fossil fuel used in production.
That compares with ethanol at 1.5, and drilling for oil at 4 to 1, but that is falling as oil is getting harder to recover. Corn ethanol may be terribly inefficient, but lets not tar all biofuels based on one crop.
Good points on bio-diesel - the proof is the biomass source. The best probable source is switchgrass, which grows in Washington state and can be shipped shorter distances, and doesn't need as much water.
Agree that Cap and Trade is better than current "voluntary" situation, even if Carbon Tax is better than either.
Action speaks louder than words.
Cap-and-trade is probably the best we'll get in the current political climate, for the simple reason that any policy proposal with the word "tax" in it will have a very serious uphill battle these days.
So Sven, tsm, whenever we have two options which are both better than a third option, we should pick the second best, not the best. As long as it's better than the worst, that's good enough. To me that is just a way of taking things off the table and working your way down to the status quo.
If I want to win a negotiation, shouldn't my first offer be more than I could wish for? You don't start with the minimum you're willing to accept unless you enjoy losing (i.e. you are a typical Democrat).
Coal isn't meant to be a long-term sustainable solution. But it is a short-term one that doesn't have us dependent on the Middle East.
Ditto for Ethanol. Not THE solution but in the short-term it's better that we're beholden to Big Corn in Iowa than Big Oil in Saudi Arabia.
@17 -
Proposing an energy plan isn't like haggling on a car. If we spend months negotiating on a carbon tax plan that goes nowhere, we may not get a chance at a second offer for a long time. Look what happened with nationalized health care in the 1990s.
Could we get a carbon tax through? I don't know. There are people far better poised to answer that than me. But if it's unlikely to happen, give me cap-and-trade.
And yet coal creates more global warming pollution .... which makes it inherently unstable, even if we do have 300 years supply in the US itself.
Fully auctioned cap-and-trade is a nice idea, but you know that by the time it gets though the political process, it will have been modified to include substantial free hand-outs to current big emitters. That's what happened in Europe. And that's why Greg Mankiw, founder of the Pigou club, which supports a carbon tax, says "cap-and-trade = carbon tax + corporate welfare".
But hey, if you can really manage to get fully auctioned cap-and-trade, more power to you. We can use the extra revenues to maintain the Bush tax cuts for the rich beyond 2010.
Fully auctioned cap-and-trade is a fantastic idea, but you know that by the time it gets though the political process, it will have been modified to include substantial free hand-outs to current big emitters. That's what happened in Europe. And that's why Greg Mankiw, founder of the Pigou club, which supports a carbon tax, says "cap-and-trade = carbon tax + corporate welfare".
But hey, if they can really manage to get fully auctioned cap-and-trade, more power to you. We can use the extra revenues to maintain the Bush tax cuts for the rich beyond 2010.
40 mpg new car minimums should be mandatory for 2009. Vehicles that can't meet that standard should be available to those that need them through a commercial or agricultural license.
Why commercial? I can see industrial, but we've had the tech to produce - and most of the EU and Japan uses - trucks that get 40 mpg right now.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).