Today’s post is from Sara Hessenflow Harper, a policy analyst for our national climate campaign. She does extensive outreach to the agricultural community.
Yesterday, Mark MacLeod wrote about the “safety valve” and its flaws. I wanted to add to the discussion a more specific look at its implications for rural America. In addition to the problems Mark noted, the “safety valve” would also cut farmers out of the carbon market. Here’s how.
Read More
Today’s post is by Mark MacLeod, director of special projects for the national climate campaign at Environmental Defense.
Some people have proposed a “safety valve” to control the costs of a cap-and-trade policy to fight global warming. This post explains what a safety valve is, and why it provides only an illusion of cost management.
This post is by Mark MacLeod, director of special projects for the national climate campaign at Environmental Defense.
Cap-and-trade is the structure of most of the global warming bills being considered by Congress.
The “cap” is the cornerstone of the policy. It is an absolute, nationwide limit on global warming pollution. Congress would most likely establish a cap measured as billions of tons of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) released into the atmosphere each year. Over time, the cap would be lowered to cut emissions enough to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. (See our earlier series for more on how much we need to cut.)
The “trade” part is a market that creates powerful incentives for companies to reduce pollution, and provides flexibility in how companies can meet the limits.
Here’s how it works:
In 2005, California petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for permission to establish its own, stricter tailpipe emissions standards. Nearly two years have passed, and EPA still has not ruled on the request – despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that EPA has the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions.
Today, Environmental Defense and NRDC sent a letter to EPA warning that they will join California to in a lawsuit to compel "EPA’s unreasonably delayed and unlawfully withheld final action on California’s waiver request" if the agency does not make a decision within 180 days.
ignoratio elenchi n.
A logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but has nothing to do with the proposition it purports to prove. Also known as “irrelevant conclusion”. [Lat. ignorance of refutation.]
George Will is at it again with his OpEd piece "Fuzzy Climate Math" in yesterday’s Washington Post. He makes a lot of pronouncements about global warming, and gets it all wrong. Although I already gave Richard Lindzen an Ignoratio Elenchi Award this week, Mr. Will’s piece is too deserving to go unrewarded.
I had an encouraging experience on Monday and Tuesday. I visited our nation’s capitol to speak with some House members and their staff about climate change.
