He said what?

eareidjr said:

Define "economic disaster." Suggested contextual definition below.

Unreliable power supply, resulting in production and transaction interruptions and a lower standard of living resulting from higher costs for less reliable power service.

WilmotMcCutchen said:

Prizes for cleantech breakthrough ideas would also help.  How about if donors fund an annual Obama Prize -- like the Nobel Prize -- in various cleantech categories for ideas which have been "reduced to practice" in the patentability sense?  The nearest thing we have now is ARPA-E, which is out of reach for most really new ideas because of the 20% cost sharing requirement for funded projects.  Too much of an emphasis on up front industry engagement, instead of the first priority: breakthrough ideas. 

 

JohnWhitehead said:

Two comments:

"Handicapping conventional fossil fuel generation so that wind and solar can compete in price, even though they can't do the job of providing baseload power, will bring on economic disaster."

Define "economic disaster."

"Contrary to what we hear from cap-and-trade proponents, we do not in fact have 'all the technology we need.'"

Which proponents are saying that? The standard theory is that the higher energy price resulting from cap-and-trade would provide incentives to develop renewable energy technology.

WilmotMcCutchen said:

"Incentives" should be positive, more like rewards or support.  The punitive flavor of cap-and-trade and carbon taxes turns me off.  Handicapping conventional fossil fuel generation so that wind and solar can compete in price, even though they can't do the job of providing baseload power, will bring on economic disaster.  What we need is a NASA-type agency for a moon shot scale R&D effort in cleantech and grid renewal.  Contrary to what we hear from cap-and-trade proponents, we do not in fact have "all the technology we need."  Plus we need some system of rewards for actual achievement of CO2 capture and disposal, on a per-documented-ton basis.  Put a bounty on it.  Pay the bounty with negotiable tax credits against future tax liabilities.  No cheating with forest offsets, etc. 

RebeccaLutzy said:

John - I share your concern about promoting less economically efficient policies to price carbon and drive clean energy deployment.  Politically, subsidies and targeted renewable energy policies will always be much more popular and easier to pass in Congress.  I don't know what the answer is - I'm a supporter of cap-and-trade (or a carbon tax, but politically harder) myself - but the landscape we're operating within, with the recession and severe partisanship, is increasingly allergic to any policies without very clear near-term, interest group and employment growth targeted benefits. Rebecca

E&E Daily (sub req)  reported yesterday on similar comments the President made in New Hampshire this week, with an excerpt below:

President Obama acknowledged yesterday that the Senate may pass an energy bill this year without the cap-and-trade component he has long put at the center of his environmental agenda.

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Nashua, N.H., Obama repeated his call for a price on greenhouse gas emissions but said he recognized that such an approach may not have the votes to make it into law.

"The only thing I would say about it is this: We may be able to separate these things out," Obama said. "And it's conceivable that that's where the Senate ends up. But the concept of incentivizing clean energy so that it's the cheaper, more effective kind of energy is one that is proven to work and is actually a market-based approach."

Senate moderates from both parties are pushing Obama to accept an energy-only approach without putting a price on carbon emissions the way the House-passed bill (H.R. 2454) does, including Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), and Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).