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.

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Our resident geographer, Peter Black, has a new blog called Climate Atlas where he posts maps to visualize many aspects of climate change. Here's a sampling of his recent posts:

• Worldwide climate anomalies in 2007
• U.S. renewable energy resources
• Regional climate initiatives
• New York metro area with a 10-foot sea-level rise

Check it out and tell us what you think!

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Time magazine's cover story in their latest issue is "How to Win the War on Global Warming". It starts this way:

Americans don't like to lose wars – which makes sense, since we have so little practice with it. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars—the kind that test our mettle and our patriotism and our resourcefulness and our courage—and those are the kind at which we excel. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads or the eradication of polio but a massive, often frightening challenge that we decided as a culture we ought to rise up and face? If we indulge in a bit of chest-thumping and flag-waving when the job is done, well, we earned it.

We are now faced with a similarly momentous challenge: global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of our very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if we're fighting at all—and by most accounts, we're not—we're fighting on the wrong side.

Take a look and tell us what you think!

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Carrots and Sticks – Marc Gunther posted a nuanced discussion of how organizations like NRDC and Environmental Defense Fund work with corporations. Rather than endorse or disparage the corporation as a whole, the focus is on the actions the corporation takes. Environmentally responsible actions are praised – even from a corporation that's doing other things that aren't so good. It's an effective way to motivate change.

New Jobs and Affordable Energy – The Center for American Progress published a detailed and well-documented analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act and how it would affect the economy. They say, "The bill would make significant reductions in the carbon dioxide pollution that causes global warming as well as turbo charge investments in clean energy technologies such as wind, solar, and geothermal. … The boost for renewable energy would create thousands of new jobs in the clean energy industry."

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Here's the quote of the week, from a New York Times Op-Ed piece:

Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have had carbon taxes in place since the 1990s, but the tax has not led to large declines in emissions in most of these countries – in the case of Norway, emissions have actually increased by 43 percent per capita.

This observation reinforces what we've been saying all along about why a carbon tax isn't the right approach. A tax doesn't guarantee lower emissions; a cap does.

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at the Environmental Defense Fund.

PG&E Gets Energy From Cow Manure – BioEnergy Solutions has a long-term contract to deliver 3 billion cubic feet per year of pipeline-quality, renewable natural gas to Pacific Gas and Electric – a first in California. The gas is produced from dairy cow manure. Energy Trust in Oregon is working on a similar project.

Framably Pretty Green Living Tips – There are dozens of small things you can do to reduce your carbon foot, and they add up to make a difference. But how do you remember them all? You could tape an ugly old list to the wall (which you'd never look at), or you can print out this colorful diagram. Gristmill describes it as "a Cliff Notes version of climate-friendly lifestyle choices."