I read it.
I believe I understand the proposal, but not the solution.
I do not support it.

What don't I understand?

First, will the polluters be forced by the tax to "do the right thing"?

Or, what?

Consumers will pay.

Being a utility manager I have seen what happens when there are "cost-recoverable" mandates.

Utilities pay, and pass along the costs.
Consumers pay.

Look where the RPS mandates have taken electricity costs in the NE states.
(i TOTALLY opposed deregulation as it was done just about everywhere – another "build it and they will come" mandate)
To what benefit?
Where are the renewables?

Look at my co-op in Vermont – probably the most renewable utility in the east. Because we invested.
Things don't happen because of mandates.
They happen because of investments.
Investments don't happen because of mandates.
Unless they are also economical.
Such as was the case for the SOX-NOX C&T on acid rain.

Again, if CCS is not commercially available until 2020, there should be no mandate to do it until then.
The question becomes how quickly we can develop the commercial CCS technologies – then, how do we fund the development of those technologies – and you can see where the carbon tax gets its "currency" in this.

As an environmentalist, I see a huge problem when solutions are proposed that ostensibly harm the corporations and businesses.
They pass those costs on to the consumer and taxpayer.

IN THE END ALL COSTS WILL BE PAID BY THE CONSUMER AND TAXPAYER !

You need to build an energy/environment policy with that truism as its core.

Dr. Hansen proposes that there is a flow of funds – vis:
Polluters pay a tax to the government and the government pays the money back to the taxpayers.
wheeee!
Feels good.

Ummmm…. where does the money come from for the investments that are absolutely needed in the technologies to achieve both energy and carbon sustainability?

From some other legislation?

The way I see it, Dr. Hansen, all the environmental groups, all of the Congressional leaders are running scared from that "tax" word.

I hope y'all are reading the futurists on what is wrong with America.
We are not paying our way.

We need to step up to what needs doing, and what needs doing is "the right thing".

And, that is a carbon tax.

Find article at: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/
Mary Francis

But, why shoot CRA?
You're right they can be hired by anyone.
And, they work for people who support cap and trade.
(Like EDF)
I mentioned Dr. Anne Smith.
She is one of CRA's top economists, having testified on the CC bills, at Congress' request.
It was Dr. Smith's personal opinion I tried to cite, not CRA's.
She fully supports the findings of the Feb. 2008 Congressional Budget Office(CBO) report on the Policy Alternatives for Climate Change.

This study found the carbon tax to be the cheapest and quickest way to achieve our climate change goals.
What does EDF have to say about the findings of the CBO?

As for sequestration, I know what it is, and where the technology stands. That's why I said, it would not be available, commercially for new or retrofit to power plants, before 2020, if that.
You ignored my comment.

Electric cooperatives have done more than any other sector on sequestration.
Again I was a co-op manager and continue to serve on the national Board of the co-ops, having spent three years as chair of their Energy Policy, Regulatory and Legal Committee.
I am an environmentalist, and…

I am going to call Scott Anderson at ELF and ask if he believes I am wrong. Please forward.

The issue, in case I was not clear, is this.
All the bills promoted by the enviromental community are based on the eroneous premise that we can recreate the success of the acid rain cap/trade program.
UNTIL we have solutions that are available off the shelf, consumers are going to pay unnecessarily high energy bills. And those costs could run into the Trillions.
Why?
With a carbon tax, we could create a revenue flow that matches our ability to do what need to be done.
That includes getting the $$ needed to see that CCS does not slip further down the calendar.

http://www.ccs-education.net/

Back to his comment:
(CRA is apparently a consulting firm for corporations.)
The quote below is from CRA's page on Regulation:

"CRA has supported clients in a wide variety of regulatory proceedings. We assist in drafting regulatory filings and provide expert witness testimony. Our ability to perform sophisticated economic and statistical analyses and to explain our results in ways that regulators can easily understand help our clients build make strong cases to support desired outcomes."

Translation – simply tell us your desires and we'll make it happen.
Not a very principled stance.

Suggestion: joebhed should watch this new video on Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) to learn how it works and why it is important.

" CCS can dramatically reduce carbon emissions from coal plants. The IPCC's Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage says that "a power plant with CCS could reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by approximately 80-90% compared to a plant without CCS." This is after taking into account the extra energy needed to capture and compress the CO2. " says Scott Anderson, an attorney and senior policy advisor at the Environmental Defense Fund.

Meanwhile, over on Dot Earth, Andy Revkin has written about an alternative to the "cap and trade" pricing approach known as “cap and dividend”. The scheme, being strongly endorsed by NASA climatologist James Hansen, is based on the principle of making the polluter pay without placing the burdening of rising costs on the consumer, the most commonly cited down-side of "cap and trade."

Read the full story here. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/

Mary Francis

We do a disservice to our grandchildren to pretend that a Carbon C&T can mimic the SOX-NOX acid rain benefits.

When will EDF get its economists to take a look at what we should be doing? Ask Dr. Anne Smith at CRA who have done the most research on the costs associated with policy options for CC.

We can do this!
Mary Francis

How does this become a better bill, rather than one that is watered down because it failed the first time?

1) New Senators elected in November
2) Failing that…….????

Quentin

P.S. Thank you for working so hard on this, and for keeping us all so well up to date.