News-Record.com

Doug:

The President's cap-and-trade plan will effectively be a tax on energy. Carbon producing energies will have to bid for permits, with the revenues going to the Treasury. The administration expects that the auctions will bring in approximately $80 billion per year, starting in 2012. Through 2019, the administration expects to net just over $640 billion.

If the President's plan is approved in its entirety, the burden of the tax will NOT fall on the lower and middle class. The President has proposed using $526 billion of the $640 billion raised to fund his "making work pay" tax credits, meaning that nearly all of the revenue is returned to lower and middle class families. The rest of the money that is raised will go to alternative energy investments.

Overall, the President is proposing nearly $800 billion in tax cuts for middle and lower income families. Despite the huge costs of the carbon "tax," lower and middle income families come out ahead under this proposal.

Dave, I didn't say the carbon tax will fall on the lower class. Do you have a breakdown for the middle class?

If middle-income Americans indeed do "come out ahead," they still will come out ahead by a much narrower margin than they would if they weren't going to pay more to heat and light their homes.

What one hand gives, the other takes away.

At this point, I'm also skeptical about the public policy benefit of artificially raising energy costs for most Americans.

Doug:

I didn't say that you said that the carbon tax would fall on the lower class.

Yes, they will come out ahead by a narrower margin. Except among supply siders and stimulus package advocates, there is no magical formula by which you can give large tax breaks without either raising revenue or cutting services. Just as it is misleading for conservatives only to point at the tax increases under the President's proposal, it is misleading for liberals to only point at the tax cuts. I think that Americans have enough common sense to realize that you don't get something for nothing.

Raising prices while returning most of the revenue (what economists would call an income-compensated price increase) is the most effecient way of addressing our carbon-based energy problems.

"I think that Americans have enough common
sense to realize that you don't get something for nothing."

Dave, I think we've gotten into this mess partly because many Americans don't have the common sense to realize that, and their elected leaders encourage them in their foolishness.

I've been writing about the "carbon credit" scam for a couple of years now. I believe that Bernie Madoff came up with the concept. They have using this scam in Western Europe for about 15 years. Even in France where ultra clean Nuclear is used to produce 70-80% of their electricity, they have come nowhere close to meeting the Kyoto goals for reducing emissions.

In Great Brittain, where they have been screwed royally by this same scam, the citizens were recently told by Prince Charlie, a graduate of the Al Gore Climate Science Institute of Mars, that despite the years of higher taxes ,the climate "crisis" is much worse, and predicted global catastrophe within 4 years. It's more dire now, as these loons usually say "within 10 years!"

This deranged mindset has nothing to do with climate change. It is about more government control of our lives. Since there is ZERO proof that CO2 increases the temperature (and the FACT that the planet has been cooling for the past 10 years) the zealots tell us there is a "consensus" of our role in the warming that stopped 10 years ago.

These same fools, who nearly went insane (further insane) over the disappearing Arctic ice, somehow managed to miss a 193,000 sq. mile (the size of Crazyfornia) "chunk" of that mysteriously "disappearing" ice!

They also seem capable of ignoring all of the evidence of the how problematic there computer models have been when they actually eventually do actual observations. These computer models are similar to the ones used by the local weather folks that have predicted all of the winter storms we were to have gotten over the past 4 years. They finally got one, before they were forced to put their equiptment for sale on Ebay!

Finally, the IPCC has issued a report stating that FARM ANIMALS are the primary cause of greenhouse gases. The "consensus" of many is that is we rid ourselves of hamburgers, and T-Bone steaks, become vegans, it would be the same as removing all of ths "planes, trains, and automobiles" from the planet! And that's the rest of the story.

Manmade "Global Warming" is a political strategy; it has no basis in fact and will be used by the Dem/libs to tax even more of our rapidly disappearing income so they can expand government and enslave even more people to the system. It's just another expensive vote-buying program.

Hey Dave, I almost forgot. If you believe that Bama's forecasts are anywhere near remotely accurate, or if he actually cares whether or not they are, I've got a bunch of carbon credits I'll sell you at a huge discount. Just send along a check or money order for $5000, and I'll run out back and plant some trees!

Tony:

Carbon "credits" are not a part of the President's proposal.

The forecast of a price increase that started this thread by Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy, is based on the President's figures. So if you don't believe that the President's figures "are anywhere near remotely accurate," then you've completely discounted Rogers' estimates.

BTW, a 13 percent increase in Duke Energy rates is the low end of the estimates presented in the article. A 17 percent rise in energy costs is more consistent with the President's and Rogers' numbers.

Hey Dave, here's an even better deal for all of us from Bama. This is part of an op-ed in the Boston Globe, another liberal rag on the brink of extiction. Perhaps lunacy like this is why!

" A bill before Congress, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide more comprehensive coverage for all. The bill includes doctor, hospital, long-term, mental health, dental, and vision care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies, with no premiums, copayments, or deductibles." If you believe that I've got some reasonably priced carbon offsets for you.

And there won't be any rationing of care, shortage of medical personnel (I'm sure surgeons will be willing to work for a few Euros and hour) or equiptment. CT Scans, and MRI's for everyone who needs them. No long waiting list for elective surgeries. No expensive procedures will be denied the elderly, or smokers, or the obese.

Somebody, quick sign me up. And I'm getting a tax cut also. Where has Bama been all of my life? Hey, get your carbon offsets here, they're goin fast, so you'd better hurry!

So, if we're not talking about carbon offsets what's the point? Apparently we keep "polluting" the planet with that dangerous CO2, but it's okay, and we can continue to "destroy the planet, so long as we pay the government to do it. Sounds good to me. Then of course, I'm insane!

Tony:

Maybe you can get some reading glasses and ADHD medication if and when we get universal health insurance. Besides being completely off the topic, the article that you are citing was a column by a physician, not an editorial by the publishers of the Globe. The column references a bill (HR 15) that was introduced by John Dingell and has no co-sponsors--hardly part of the President's legislative agenda.

A cap and trade approach involves first providing permits to industrial firms that set limits (caps) on how much they can pollute and then allowing the firms to buy or sell (trade) the permits among themselves. The Duke Energy CEO actually endorses the idea of a cap and trade approach. What he is objecting to is the way that the Obama administration would distribute the permits--through an auction. Rogers wants the permits just to be handed out.

A cap and trade approach is already in place to reduce sulfur emissions. It has worked successfully for nearly 20 years. For background on the approach see http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/pdf/capandtrade101.pdf .

A Bush-era EPA brief on the SO2 cap and trade program ( http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/ctresults.pdf ) states "a 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) study found that the Acid Rain Program accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits – over $70 billion annually – of any major federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1."

It's called a carbon tax, and it's going to fall heavily on the middle class*Doug

What middle class Doug? By the time this Globalism tax occures, this tax will be fully enforced with each Rocket trip to Mars as citizens of the Universe.

Dave, please reread my post. It clearly identifies the Globe article as an OP-ED piece. do you know what an OP-ED piece is! Besides, I thought that you guys love it when doctors endorse your economy destroying Universal HELLthcare schemes.

Okay, back to offset (cap and trade) scams. It is much easier limiting SO2 than it is CO2. CO2 is a by-product of life. Oops I just exhaled some. Hope it wasn't a lethal dose! Oops, I have some "dry ice" on hand. There goes the planet.

And finally, publishing a link to a far left web site, the Center of American Progress, a union between the joke, Media Matters, and John Podesta's orgsanization, identifies you as a member of the leftist fringe. That would be the fringe that despises Capitalism because it isn't fair. You must endorse Bama's effort to destroy free market Capitalism, which made this the greatest country in the history of the world.

Hey Doug, was that you in B&N High Point over lunch? If not, you might have a double.

Tony:

You still seem to be confusing offsets with cap and trade approaches. If you want to knock down your own strawmen, have at it. At some point if you want to talk about the policy that's actually on the table, I'll be happy to pick up the conversation.

Savage: It wasn't me or my twin brother.

The problem is that by many Democrats' estimations, anyone who 1. has a job 2. owns a home and 3. earns more than minimum wage is considered "upper income."

Now, it might be argued that such a tax increase would be a good thing, as it would encourage energy conservation. Not saying I agree with that, but you could make that argument.

But of course this tax is going to hurt middle class taxpayers, either directly or in the form of higher power rates. To think otherwise is to ignore how taxation works in the real world. There is no "magic money tree" out there to pay for all these initiatives without them affecting Joe Average.

"electricity rates would rise by at least 13 percent"

Which would bring my average rate ($.078 per kwh) to somewhere around 9 cents, which is still a lot lower than what Electricities customers are paying now.

I'm not trying to downplay the impact this would have on average folks' utility bills, but we've paid a heavy price for our cheap electricity here in North Carolina. Our mercury levels are heinous, and some 13,677 babies are born each year in this state with unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. And for you fishermen reading this, large-mouth bass have made the statewide fish consumption advisory list.

And for those who are interested, the fat lady ain't sang yet on the Cliffside issue...

Doug and Dave: The other thing to remember about cap-and-trade is that industry estimates of increased costs are almost certainly on the high side. Before the SO2 program was put in place in the early '90s (a product of the first Bush administration), public utilities made dire forecasts of high costs of compliance that were proven to be too high by at least an order of magnitude. It turns out that when businesses, even electric utilities, are forced to pay a price for polluting, they find low-cost ways of lowering their emissions. The utilities in the SO2 program were surprised at how cheap SO2 allowances got, and I expect we'll see the same thing with carbon allowances.

I love it when tonymo channels Joe McCarthy.

Dave Ribar! Are you now or have you ever been someone who goes to the Center for American Progress website? Confess, or we'll make you sit in the comfy chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven!

Dave R: Raising prices while returning most of the revenue (what economists would call an income-compensated price increase) is the most effecient way of addressing our carbon-based energy problems.

Even granting the premise that carbon-based energy is a problem, why is this an efficient solution compared with a lower tax, all of which would go to fund green energy? On the face of it, that would seem the most efficient way to address the market disadvantage affecting green energy.

One answer, I suppose, is that higher prices mean less energy usage overall--more windows replaced, thermostats adjusted, etc. So the more painful the tax, the more people will adjust their behavior, and the more painful (ideally speaking) the tax should be if we want to (as they say) save the planet.

Another answer is that this is straight-up redistributionism with a green cover: taking from the (upper) middle class and giving to the (lower) middle class--"middle class" being a non-referential word, the Obama administration being a redistributionist administration.

I suspect B.

Um, how is it "straight-up redistribution" if the carbon tax mostly hits the middle class (as its critics are claiming) and the tax proceeds are directed toward the middle class?

Because "middle class" doesn't mean anything; almost everybody is "middle class." Money, I suspect, will be redistributed from those making higher incomes to those making lower incomes through the "making work pay" tax credits. In other words, the relatively rich will be paying more in and the relatively poor will be taking more out. (Needless to say, your straw man critics are wrong: wealth correlates to energy consumption.)

Is this incorrect?

Carbon pricing is just a way to make the market behave more efficiently. Carbon dioxide is a significant negative externality. Because we haven't priced it, energy has been artificially cheap and hasn't reflected the true costs of the emissions. The fact that these emissions are costly and responsible for climate change is about as controversial in evidence-based circles as the statement that smoking is bad for you. This estimate is also based on Duke's current energy mix in the Carolinas. If they had a price for carbon, they should adjust their generating capacity accordingly. Higher energy prices also encourage efficiency, which is extremely important in the long term. The fact is, our electrical grid is in such bad shape and so close to capacity that we're probably going to see dramatically rising electricity costs no matter what.

Jim Rogers seems a bit hypocritical here because he has long supported cap and trade when no one thought it would happen and it made good PR.

I will say this about cap & trade. I do feel like putting a price on carbon is, right now, the most important issue in this country and the world. Cap & trade has the advantage of being flexible and market-based, but it does require a large amount of trust and it's difficult to know where to set the cap. A straight-forward carbon tax would likely be simpler, but doesn't guarantee you get levels down to where they need to be (we've seen how slow gasoline demand responds to price, for example). This is a policy issue I've studied quite a lot as energy policy is the primary area of my research, but I still am not entirely sure which course is best. However, given that the tax is not going to happen, I support cap & trade as the best available option. Doing nothing is stupid on levels seldom seen in human history.

Andrew C., I agree with your position about higher energy prices driving consumer efficiency. There are many ways that folks can reduce their usage, especially in larger buildings.

But (some of) my concerns about the effectiveness of cap & trade have to do with the actual costs of reducing emissions. Since these certificates will probably sell for about a third of what actual emission reduction steps (by industry) would cost, I'm afraid the impetus for making the needed reductions simply won't materialize.

So, in reality, all the cap & trade does is inject cost. Now, that should drive consumer efficiency, which is important, but it still leaves emitters the choice of burning fossil fuels or more expensive (and cleaner) alternatives. Even a straight-up carbon tax still may not substantially alter the way we produce energy.

Frankly, and I'm sure I'll get beat up from both sides on this, the best (and maybe only) way to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels is to mandate the use of cleaner energy. That way, we still get the higher costs that drive people to be more efficient, but we also guarantee that emitters actually use alternatives. REPS legislation is an example of this, but it needs to be enhanced upon and more targeted.

Dave, You still haven't explained to me how well Cap & Trade has worked in Europe. Only the traders make out. The citizens still get screwed over a totally unproven concept, man made global warming.

Once again comparing SO2 with CO2 is ludicrous. Most understand the need to control SO2 as it is fact problematic. I don't think it would be good if we had to exhale it, or if trees took it in, of if the planet were overwhelmed with it.

Mr Brod said you likely never visited the "Center for unAmerican Progress(?). Then why would you want to send us there?

I find it instructive that so many of the "we hate this bad country, and we hate free markets, and this is such an awful place to live" organizations feel it necessary to put the words America, or Americans in their titles, to, I assume, fool the uninformed.

We have "The Center for unAMERICAN Progress." The unAMERICAN Criminal Liberties Union." "Union unAMERICANS United for Change." The People for the unAmerican Way."

Sulfur Dioxide-A suffocating gas formed when sulfur burns, used chiefly in the mfg of sulfuric acid.

Carbon Dioxide-An incombustible gas present in the atmosphere, and formed during respiration: used in carbonated beverages, fire extinguishers, etc.

Please explain the need to try to compare the two. If you had to take a guess, which would you guess to be the most problematic, and the most likely to be detrimental to our, and friends the trees, health!

Andrew, are you doing your "research" on climate change at the Al Gore Institiute on FACTS about climate change, Mars Branch.

It is a flat out lie that it is a FACT that CO2 causes climate change. Please tell me exactly how much CO2 emmissions have been reduced in those countries that have bought into the Cap and Trade scam. Why are the Brits being told that despite having been forced to pay significantly more for energy over the past 15 because of this scam, they are now being told that global warming is reaching a crisis point, putting them in eminent danger.

You climate change zealots are literally insane! Price CO2! It's already priced. Just go by some dry ice. When you figure out how to price it, I'm going to exhale into plastic bags and sell it.

"But throughout the more than 4 billion-year history of our neighbor, its climate has cycled back and forth between warmer and cooler periods as the planet wobbled on its axis. Like Earth, Mars' axis is tilted with respect to its orbital plane and the degree of tilt changes over thousands of years. But Mars' tilt changes more over time, alternately heating up or cooling down parts of the planet as the amount of sunlight falling on them changes.But throughout the more than 4 billion-year history of our neighbor, its climate has cycled back and forth between warmer and cooler periods as the planet wobbled on its axis. Like Earth, Mars' axis is tilted with respect to its orbital plane and the degree of tilt changes over thousands of years. But Mars' tilt changes more over time, alternately heating up or cooling down parts of the planet as the amount of sunlight falling on them changes."

Geez, how can Mars warm without human help? Oh, it's the sun silly! I wonder if the scientists who discovered these facts are among those "man made warming" consensus mongers! Please explain to me why you believe that liberalism is not a mental defect!

Tony:

Two MIT professors, Paul Joskow and Denny Ellerman, who have studied the European system report that " In light of the speed with which the program was developed, the many sovereign countries involved, the unexpected increase in natural gas prices affecting a partially liberalized electricity sector, the need to develop the necessary data and compliance procedures, and the lack of extensive experience with emissions trading in Europe, we think that the system has evolved surprisingly well." ( http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/EU-ETS-In-Perspective-Report.pdf ). As they point out in their report, the CO2 cap and trade system in Europe has operated mostly in a trial phase. Despite many challenges, the trial has been successful in establishing a functioning permit system and market.

Joskow is one of the country's pre-eminent energy and regulation specialists. He is currently the CEO of the Alfred P. Sloan foundation.

Cap and trade has worked in this country for SO2 and NOX. It appears poised to work in Europe for CO2.

Andrew, it has been an abject failure in Europe. Another MIT scientist, Willie Soon has said that he can find no, none, zero correlation between CO2 and warming.

Comparing CO2 with SO2 is like comparing a pellet gun to a gattling gun!

Are you familiar with what the IPCC called the Medievel Warm Period. It last from about 1050 A.D. to about 1450 A.D. During that period the planet was slightly warmer than it is today, well probably a lot warmer than today, that chart was prepared in 1995 or 96.

When famed climate scientist, Al Gore decided to run for president in 2000, the IPCC produced another chart, but incredibly, the Warm Period has disappeared. So the UN had to repudiate it's own findings to conform to the religion of global warming.

If you'll Google "Fire and Ice" you find a 100+ year history of global warming/cooling hysteria in the media. Obviously none of the predicted catastrophic events have happened. Gee, what a surprise.

Tony:

Typical response. Information contradicts your assertion, so rather than reading or responding to the information, you change the topic.

Soon is not at MIT but at Harvard. He has reported a link between man-made carbon emissions and climate change but believes that the associated climate change is less than catastrophic.

The comparison between CO2 and SO2/NOX is in terms of a policy (cap and trade) to control industrial emissions.

Are you familiar with the 2006 National Academy of Sciences report ( http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1 ) that addressed the precise issue that you mentioned? It acknowledges uncertainties in the climate record, especially the record before 1600 A.D.

Their exact conclusion was "The committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that 'the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium' because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."

The NAS panel found a lot of evidence that temperatures in the late 20th century were warmer but also some contradictory evidence that the medieval period may have been warmer. Unlike your definitive assertion that the medieval period "WAS slightly warmer" or "probably a lot warmer," they find that most of the evidence points the other way, though falls short of being conclusive.

Tony,

I do research from many sources, which is what good research is. I don't read Gore very much (except when I was writing a critique of his energy plan) but instead consult the relevant scientific literature. It is in fact quite conclusive. As Dave said, it's quite possible it's warmer now than the period you mentioned, but even if it's not, the key is that it will continue to warm at an increasing rate. Of course CO2 is a biproduct of respiration, but it's the levels that are important. The climate, you're right, has gone through many cycles over billions of years, but not since we've been here. The relevant thing is that when the climate changes drastically, there are mass extinctions. The planet will of course survive, but it sure wouldn't be good for us. Celebrate your ignorance all you want, but the consensus is about as strong as it gets in science.

Also Dave's correct to say that comparing CO2 to SO2 is relevant when we are discussing a policy. We wanted to reduce SO2 emissions, and we did, so if you want to reduce CO2 emissions (putting aside if you should) it's an extremely reasonable position to consider the same method.

scharrison,
Your critique is correct if the cap is set high. However, if the cap were set low then the price of carbon credits would be very high, and probably more expensive the decreasing pollution. That's why I said knowing where to cap it is difficult. However, the idea is for the cap to decrease over time, so if it's started too high it should get down to more appropriate levels. Of course situations vary, but often pollution can be reduced significantly for very low cost. Still, in the worst case scenario where you're right and all that happens are costs are injected, I still think that it would be a good thing because energy is artificially cheap. We use a lot more energy per person then even countries with similar incomes (in some cases twice as much), so we have a lot of room to reduce what we use and I don't know how to do that without raising prices.

Thanks Andrew for the reasonable response. Here below is something else you might want to research:

A new study says global warming is on hold. Discovery News reports scientists are puzzled that temperatures have flat lined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

Scientist Kyle Swanson from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee says, "This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950. Cooling events since then had firm causes… This current cooling doesn't have one."

In fact, the study predicts global cooling for the next 20 to 30 years. But, Swanson adds once that hiccup is over, "warming will return and be very aggressive."

The scientists are "puzzeld" because this doesn't jibe with their pre-conceived biases!
And Andrew thae fact that WE WEREN'T HERE
during the Medievel Warm Period is precisely the point!!!!!!!

Two bits of brilliance from my favorite philosopher. "Ignorance is the most expensive commodity we have."

And, "the historical perspective of the average American is from the day they were born until the present!"

You seem not able to grasp that the climate of the planet changes without the help of humans. It has for billions of years. It will continue long after we're gone. Even famed Climate Scientist Al Gore of the prestigous Gore Climate Institute, Mars branch, has stopped saying that we will destroy the planet, only that our civilization will be destroyed. And? Many civilizations have been disappeared. The planet is still here.

One last point. Do some research about the Sahara Desert. It was once a lush fertile Savannah. Evidence of the presence of water creatures has been found. Now, it is one of the most massive, most desolate places on earth. What changed it? Global Warming? No, it was the tlit of the planet changing, just like on Mars, where it appears there was once water.

You need to stop buying into the religion of global warming, and look for the truth, even if that truth is found in places, and times, BEFORE YOU ARRIVED HERE!

Andrew, I forgot one thing. Consensus is the LACK of science. I would assume that at one time there was a "consensus" that the earth was flat,or that the sun circled the earth, or a thousand other consensus' that were vastly incorrect.

And Dave, I saw the interview with Soon. Sorry if I got the wrong school, I was more interested in his point. It was made during a climate conference in NYC last year. Al Gore refused to attend despite being told the sponsors would pay his full appearnce fee! For a man who is so certain about his conclusions, he avoids everr having to debate them, other than with school children!

"I don't know how to do that without raising prices."

I understand, Andrew. But the market is a hard thing to control. The recent gas price fluctuations are proof of that. Costly gas did generate a radical change in behavior; people drove less, they purchased more efficient cars, and even pushed public transportation ridership up. And the market corrected, (unfortunately) reversing some of this behavioral change.

Now, I know your dad will probably disagree with me on this, but the passage of the CAFE standard moving from 27.5 to 35 mpg is a much more solid approach to pursuing a reduction in fuel usage. That move alone represents a reduction of around 2.4 mbd, which is the equivalent of 3 times what ANWR would yield (if we drilled there).

If the goal is to reduce the burning of fossil fuels and to vastly increase the use of cleaner energy sources, then we should just go ahead and mandate it, instead of setting up a (mandated) market-based formula that we hope will bring it about.

That doesn't mean there can't be healthy competitiveness underlying the mandates; the proliferation of state REPS has already generated a "demand" for renewable energy that has pushed the private sector to invest in/construct wind farms and other renewables, so they could sell the energy credits. And again, the consumer costs will go up, encouraging the efficient behavior we talked about. But it will be costs directly associated with clean energy, as opposed to "tariffs" (or whatever you want to call them) which may or may not bring us the clean energy.

Tony, he says there could be a temporary period where warming slows. There is nothing in there that could possibly lead one to conclude that man-made global warming isn't true. Besides, I'm not basing any conclusions on a single study. Results have been verified over and over. Consider why scientists feel so certain about this. It's not like they just woke up and decided to make something up. This is a complex system so we don't have silver bullet direct, simple observation like say Galileo had from the moons of Jupiter, but science seldom works that way. It's similar to the development of plate tectonics theory. It reached scientific consensus in the 1960s despite no "proof" because the combined weight of evidence was so convincing, just like we have with climate change. It wasn't until the 1980s that satellite evidence could provide direct proof that the plates were moving.

But let's pretend that there's only a 50/50 chance of global warming. In that case, we'd still be total idiots not to do anything. What we lose by reducing emissions in the event no threat materializes is much less than what we lose if we do nothing and it does. Also, reducing emissions and increasing efficiency has other benefits such as for health and in the geopolitical sense helps this country enormously. Could you begin to imagine how much the US would be strengthened if we weren't a net energy importer? It would be tremendous. A significant drop in the price of oil would mean instant death for autocratic regimes in Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. Reducing emissions basically has a multitude of upsides.

sch, I think CAFE standards are important. However, cars only account for about a quarter of GHG emissions, so it's not nearly enough. Mandates may work, but I would argue they would be more expensive, and the most important thing is that it's politically impossible. I think we have to use market forces because otherwise we're only addressing the supply side, and I think changing demand is the real key. Reducing the amount of energy makes every other part of the equation so much easier. So far the only way we do that is the CAFE standards. In other energy markets I think that price is the only way we'll change demand.

Andrew:

If you get a chance, please say "hi" to my former Economics colleagues in the ESIA at GW.