I appeared last Friday on 88.9 KCRW Santa Monica and Public Radio International's nationally-syndicated show "To the Point" to discuss the recent withdrawal by Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) of a compromised Energy bill based on largely on a framework of Cap and Trade.
After more than $100 million in lobbying by green groups and allied industry players, and the bill's eventual watering down to a "utility-only" cap, Majority Leader Reid confessed that there was still no way he or the party would be able to muster the sixty votes necessary for the beleaguered legislation to pass.
This is the fourth time in seven years that this cap and trade strategy has been shot down. This time, with the Democrats just one seat shy of a super-majority and with the White House occupied by a president who came to office promising to make climate change a top priority, perhaps the latest episode in the serial failure of cap and trade indicates that it is time to bury the failed policy and develop an entirely new strategy -- one capable of overcoming the political obstacles that doomed cap and trade while successfully making clean energy cheap enough to sustainable power an energy-hungry planet.
You can listen to the roughly eight-minute discussion below. Just hit play and skip to 45-minute mark for the segment.
http://www.watthead.org/2010/07/climate-bill-set-aside-whats-next-for.html



















CharlesBarton said:
Jesse, We need to talk about policies designed to encourage techno-fixs rather than imagine that we can successfully mitigate AGW, by a social engineering-government policy approach, Techno-fixes are consistent to market oriented AGW solutions, and solutions are not going to be accepted by congress if they are not market oriented. Thinking about AGW mitigation has to be oriented to bring Republicans on board in a grand coalition. We don't need to agree about our motives, if we can find common ground for effective actions. Even if Republicans do not buy into a need for carbon control they might be persuaded to accept an energy policy that saves hundreds of billions of dollars every year in oil import costs, and which reserves fossil fuels for industrial feedstock rather than energy use. Republicans might buy into replacing our antiquated coal fired steam plants, simply because they are worn out and really need replacing. Replacing them with nuclear power plants is something that Republicans seem ready to buy into. Expanding the generation infra-structure would be required if oil based transportation is to be replaced by electrical powered transportation systems.
We don't know what is possible until we start talking about it, and a political dialogue should be encouraged, in order to determine what is possible.
- reply
- 0 points
Wed, 2010-07-28 06:54 — Charles BartonPost new comment