Brad Plumer over at TNR has a good post about how allowances are allocated in the climate bill in front of the House. He goes into detail about how savings will be passed through to consumers, including some insight from our own Nat Keohane.

Indiana Representative Mike Pence famously called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 an example of the East and West Coasts "declaring economic war on the Midwest."

So you'd think that now that the bill has passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Americans in the heartland would be up in arms. But...not so much.

In fact, some of the largest and most respected media outlets in the Midwest and other traditional coal and oil states are accepting of the bill, even happy with it. Here are a few  highlights from the last week:

"Gov. Mitch Daniels and U.S. Reps. Mike Pence and Steve Buyer have some significant non-allies in their vehement opposition to the carbon reduction legislation now moving through Congress. Among them are most of the Midwest's governors, who already have signed a regional cap-and-trade agreement; and Indiana's largest electric utility, whose boss accepts the need for congressional action and insists it will benefit rather than punish this coal-dependent region – if the region's leadership pulls up to the table."
– Indianapolis Star editorial, May 28, 2009

"Each generation is asked to generate new ideas that will make our nation a world leader. Clean energy could be our next big discovery...Our nation can stick with the status quo and continue to fall prey to $4-a-gallon gas - the straw that broke the economy's back - and environmental disasters such as the Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant spill, or change directions and move toward cleaner energy."
– Daily News Journal (Murfreesboro, Tenn.) editorial, May 28, 2009

"Climate change imposes very real costs on all of us, on our children and on our grandchildren. We are subsidizing current energy prices at the expense of our progeny. The longer we defer payment, the higher those costs will be ... It's as if we are financing our lifestyle with an interest-only mortgage. There's a big balloon payment looming in our future, but we've refused to set anything aside to pay it ... the cap-and-trade bill represents an important advance because it has a realistic chance of being approved. If we do not start reducing our global warming liabilities now, we will be overwhelmed with the debt later."
– St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial, May 28, 2009

"The American Clean Energy and Security Act unveiled this week is not perfect, but it's a smart step toward reducing carbon emissions without destroying American industry and jobs ... The Waxman-Markey bill is a plan the Congress should accept."
– Bristol (Tenn.) Herald-Courier editorial, May 22, 2009

"While the do-nothing crowd stews on the sidelines, those committed to doing something about climate change are fully engaged ... it's not just tree-hugging environmentalists. It's not just Democrats. It's not just climatologists. It's leaders of many stripes answering the call on the biggest issue facing our planet ... Texas being the nation's petrochemical capital, it can't sit on the sidelines when guidelines are written."
– Waco Tribune-Herald editorial, May 22, 2009

"If done properly, cap and trade would be a responsible compromise as the federal government attacks the problem of global warming. Obama and the Democratic leadership must stand firm during debate on the cap and trade policy. The final bill ought to contain strict, fair rules on who should pay to reduce greenhouse gases and how much it could cost."
– Kansas City Star editorial, May 20, 2009

The House committee's new draft bill was big news this week, but it threatens to be overshadowed by all the posts flying around about the misuse of a number by prominent Congressmen, notably Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Some of our favorite rebuttals:

• EDF's own Truth Squad gives a brief sketch of the number and why it was wrong.
• The Daily Green explains how Boehner misinterpreted the number, including a handy chart.
• Grist has great quotes from the study's author, an MIT professor, commenting on the number Boehner used (via PolitiFact). The best: "It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin."
• The Wall Street Journal included the latest press release from Republican leadership, who are not backing down in the face of simple math.

And a shout-out to One Blue Marble, spotlighting what EDF's Fred Krupp says about the costs of climate action, based on Department of Energy data:

The impact on household utility bills will be about a dime a day, and that dime will be the hardest working dime in America. It will create jobs, reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and protect the climate.

Mainstream media is delving into the details of climate policy at a level we just didn't see a couple years ago. Here's a sampling from this week:

Newsweek asked whether we can still afford to invest in an environmentally-friendly economy, and to find out, they talked with our president, Fred Krupp. He gave this example of how green investments make sense all around:

When we make the energy high-efficiency, low-carbon, we can create all types of jobs—jobs that weatherize homes that create dollars that stay here instead of going overseas to pay for imported oil. We can create jobs that produce the materials for weatherization, we can create jobs to make wind turbines and install them. It's not only high-tech jobs we're creating, it's a tremendous number of jobs in existing, familiar businesses. (Read the two-page interview.)

The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Fred Krupp yesterday. He starts by observing:

When Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson says he favors a carbon tax over a cap-and-trade system, it's worth asking why the energy giant would want to put a government levy on its own product.

Why, indeed? A tax would not set a legal limit on the pollution created by Exxon's products. A cap would.

And finally, this line from a Los Angeles Times editorial calls out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a business lobbying group:

There will be winners and losers in the clean-energy economy, and those who stand to lose have the loudest voices in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The winners won't just be green-technology innovators; they include everybody on Earth.

From an address at the White House yesterday:

We can remain the world’s leading importer of foreign oil, or become the world’s leading exporter of renewable energy. We can allow climate change to wreak unnatural havoc, or we can create jobs preventing its worst effects.

It's definitely worth reading the news summary and full remarks.

Matthew Yglesias over at ThinkProgress took the one of my favorite points — that when you look at the cost of capping carbon, you also have to look at what you get for your money — and made a nice analogy:

This seems like an important point! If I added up the ruinous costs of auto ownership—thousands of dollars in up front costs, fuel costs, repairs, insurance, etc.—but forgot to mention that you get to drive your car around it would seem baffling that anyone buys one. The same principle applies to carbon pricing.

Here's the whole post.

And in case you missed the piece by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, he looks at 10 key things to keep in mind about a cap on carbon. It's a nice clear explanation (and I'm not just saying that because he quoted me!).

Last week, Brad Plumer over at the New Republic made some thoughtful points about climate policy that are worth taking a look at.

He puts well the key difference between a cap and a tax:

With a tax, we know in advance how much it will cost, but aren't sure what emissions level will result. With a well-enforced cap-and-trade regime, we know the maximum level of emissions we'll get, but aren't positive how much it will cost to get there...

We take issue with some of his thoughts about to how to cope with fluctuations in the market price of carbon (a so-called "safety valve" is a bad idea), but it's great to see a clear-headed reaction to the fluctuations in the European market.

Last week, Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza asked for thoughts on what Obama's first legislative priority should be upon taking office. I submitted this comment:

President-elect Barack Obama will face a series of challenges that rival any of his modern predecessors — a damaged economy, a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, aging and inefficient U.S. infrastructure, and a deteriorating environment.

Each individually would warrant the immediate attention of the White House. But the President-elect has an historic opportunity to work with Congress on a plan to address them all. That plan should start with a cap on global warming pollution.

With that cap, we can help revitalize the economy by instantly creating new markets and new customers for U.S. manufacturers in the supply chain for clean energy technologies – think wind turbines and all of the cement and steel that go into them. We can stem the flow of petrodollars overseas, by as much as $500 billion over the next two decades by MIT estimates. And we can generate new revenue for investment in America by auctioning emissions permits – all while fighting climate change.

It’s the energy policy America needs now. President-elect Obama should begin working with Congress early in his administration to enact a cap and restore U.S. leadership in the global climate change debate.

This morning, Cilizza posted a follow-up with excerpts from "the most interesting/provocative thoughts" he received, and I was happy to see my suggestion among them: a cap on global warming pollution.

This post is by Tony Kreindler, media director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund.

The debate goes on about EDF's competition to visually explain how a carbon cap will solve our addiction to oil. Joe Romm critiqued the competition as "bizarre" since it asked people to "explain something that isn’t true." I responded by saying that MIT's climate model supports us. This prompted another response from Romm titled "EDF's and MIT's magical thinking on carbon caps and oil."

As I mentioned in my previous post about this thread, the discussion was not yet over. I posted my latest response on Gristmill and Environmental Economics.

The gist? History helps illustrate why, if anything, we are underestimating likely technological progress.

This post is by Gernot Wagner, Ph.D., an economist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense Fund.

A few weeks ago we posted about our video design competition - $10,000 to the winner  - for depicting how a cap on greenhouse gases can solve our addiction to oil. Joe Romm on Climate Progress had a problem with this - said we were asking the impossible since a cap wouldn't do this.

I responded to Romm's objection on the Environmental Economics blog with a post titled "Bizarre"? No. Tough? Yes. But that wasn't the end of it. Romm fired back, accusing EDF of "magical thinking". Our exchange is also cross-posted on Grist (Romm's first post, my response, Romm's answer).

Stay tuned - I'll be posting a response to Romm's second post this week.

This post is by Gernot Wagner, Ph.D., an economist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense Fund.