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:
Guest blogger Lisa Moore, Ph.D., is a scientist in the Climate and Air Program.
Last week, Bill summarized two new studies about carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and ocean. This week brought three very different topics: hurricanes (quite timely, since today is the first day of the Atlantic hurricane season!), global rainfall patterns and rainbow trout.
Yesterday, The New York Times published an editorial about coal-to-liquid technology. Their warning against so-called energy solutions that actually worsen climate change is right on target.
For more, check out a post I wrote last month, about why coal-to-liquid technology is a bad idea.
If you’re concerned about hurricanes and global warming and you’ve been reading the newspapers and magazines, you are probably confused.
Perhaps in an effort to be “balanced,” most stories in the media these days present a muddled picture. Cornelia Dean’s piece in the New York Times is a good case in point: a scientific paper is cited claiming a connection; another is cited claiming the opposite. The implication is that the science is inconclusive.
