<\/p>\n
The Center for American Progress<\/a> offers <\/p>\n Bradford Plumer rounded <\/p>\n Four useful takeaways The program started modestly—maybe too modestly: <\/strong>“The price of Also, the cap-and-trade program is not killing the <\/p>\n Related note<\/strong>: According <\/p>\n If you’re going to read <\/p>\n Or just skip it and <\/p>\n * A reader notes that $88 million was from only the most recent auction. Altogether, RGGI auctions have raised<\/a> some $582 million for efficiency and renewable programs.<\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Koch Industries funds climate change deniers, Greenpeace reports<\/a><\/p>\n Let’s call setting a price on carbon “puppies”<\/a><\/p>\n
\na reminder that we already have a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions up
\nand running in the U.S.— it’s called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, it operates in 10 northeastern states, and it works fairly well, according to CAP’s new
\nreview<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nup<\/a> the details in the CAP post. Now I’m copping from his post—what fun, this internet.<\/p>\n
\nhere, via Plumer:<\/p>\n
\ncarbon is extremely low—a meager $2 per ton of emissions—which isn’t really
\nhigh enough to persuade utilities to change their behavior.”
\nPolluters pay the low price—they don’t get giveaways:<\/strong> “All of those
\ncarbon permits are auctioned off by state governments, which has allowed states
\nto raise about $88 million* for efficiency and renewable-power programs. So as a
\nfunding stream, it’s not too shabby.”
\nIt’s not creating any Enrons<\/strong>: “It hasn’t been subject to the sorts
\nof market manipulations or price volatility that people worry about with
\ncap-and-trade. A recent
\naudit <\/a>found that the permit auctions have all gone off smoothly—no
\noutsiders are leaping in and creating a carbon bubble.”
\nMore will be revealed!: <\/strong>“Pretty soon, the cap will start
\ntightening, prices will go up, and then we’ll presumably get a better look at
\nhow well the program forces power plants to reduce their emissions.”<\/p>\n
\neconomy or freedom or kittens<\/strong>. This needs harping on. As urban designer Steve
\nPrice<\/a> will tell you, the best way to convince people to embrace something
\nnew is to show them what it’s like. A
\ntheoretical phantom cap-and-trade system, in the hands of the right
\nfear-mongers, can spook a lot of people. A real-life, moderately successful
\nprogram just isn’t very scary. The real life version is less useful for
\ndrumming up Tea Party rallies. It’s more useful for taking modest early steps
\ntoward reigning in carbon pollution.<\/p>\n
\nto<\/a> today’s New York Times, cap-and-trade is dead<\/strong>. John Broder
\nwrites the latest pre-mortem about why Congress will never pass an economy-wide
\ncap-and-trade program.<\/p>\n
\nit, keep in mind all the “healthcare reform is dead” stories and predictions that surfaced over the past year—Huffington
\nPost has a
\nroundup.<\/a><\/p>\n
\nlisten to what Rep. Tom Periello has
\nto say<\/a> instead: “I’m sick of starting with what can we get through the
\nSenate; let’s start with what solves the damn problem. Until the Senate gets
\nits head out of its rear-end and starts to see the crisis we’re in, our country
\nis literally at risk. Our economy is at risk, because these jobs are being
\ncreated overseas.”<\/p>\n