World Resources Institute Summary of Waxman-Markey http://www.wri.org/stories/2009/04/brief-summary-waxman-markey-discussion-draft
as pdf: http://pdf.wri.org/wri_waxman_markey_draft_summary_20090331.pdf Chart of the emissions reductions with brief explanation: http://www.wri.org/chart/emissions-reductions-under-waxman-markey-discussion-draft-2005-2050 Most recent version of the full explanation: http://pdf.wri.org/usclimatetargets_2009-04-22.pdf Blog about it on climate progress (Joe Romm): http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/10/waxman-markey-2020-ghg-cuts-wri/ Amazingly, Romm, the author of the term "rip-offsets", goes along with the WRI assumption that carbon offsets will do any good. Hansen hopes Waxman Markey fails because Cap and Trade is irredeemable, see http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/05/04/hansen-hopes-lawmakers-cap-and-trade-approach-to-climate-will-fail/ This web site also has some good comments. Hansen's own latest email has two pages about cap and trade at the beginning, see http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090505_TempleOfDoom.pdf Romm wrote two responses to Hansen: http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/06/2009/05/05/james-hansen-waxman-markey-carbon-tax-cap-and-trade/ and http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/06/hansen-wattsupwiththat-cap-and-trade-waxman-marke/ Here are my own thoughts about this debate: it is pointless to speculate whether it is good or bad that Waxman Markey passes. For better or for worse, some watered-down version of it will pass. Right now it's a no brainer that we try to make it as strong as possible. The danger, of course, is that, after it passes, everybody will say: "problem solved, now we can go back to sleep." Therefore we have to make it very clear already now that, although this bill must be defended and strengthened, nobody should ever have the illusion that it is enough. It is only be beginning of the struggle, not the end. After it is enacted we can demand better quality control of offsets, we can demand that the renewable portfolio standard will be supplemented or replaced by feed-in tariffs, we can demand a minimum price for carbon if the price fluctuates too much (this makes it a hybrid between cap'n trade and tax), and ultimately I think we have to work for a world wide system of tradable carbon rations to replace both cap'n trade and taxes. But the necessary changes are so big that price signals can only be a side show: we must demand an outright ban on new coal when the desired CO2 reductions won't materialize, and we must wrest control of the grid away from big energy and make the grid available for distributed renewable energy creation. We must demand more public investment building a national grid, electrifying railroads and regional mass transit, exploring geothermal resources, developing green technologies for the developing countries, etc. If private investment does not materialize (perhaps because the next phase of the financial crisis hits) public investment should also stand ready to develop the smart grid, build infrastructure for electric passenger vehicles and natural gas trucks, etc. While doing all this, build an ever more powerful mass movement which embraces climate justice, distributed generation of renewable energy, low energy living and low population growth. The grassroots have to learn to keep the representatives accountable. This movement must become powerful enough to sweep the suicidal oil and coal interests off the table now, and then, after the big investments for the energy and transportation switch have been done, it must discard the economic growth paradigm and fight for a rational steady-state economy. Hans. Hans G. Ehrbar http://www.econ.utah.edu/~ehrbar [email protected] Economics Department, University of Utah (801) 581 7797 (my office) 1645 Campus Center Dr., Rm 308 (801) 581 7481 (econ office) Salt Lake City UT 84112-9300 (801) 585 5649 (FAX) _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
