What shall we do about the dilution of Waxman-Markey that is going on before our eyes? Here is my answer. Waxman-Markey will not be an effective climate bill from the beginning. It is going to be a watered-down compromise, to be strengthened later. Therefore our tactic must be to do all we can to make it as strong as possible with as little delay as possible, and build up our forces during this campaign. After the bill has been passed we have to continue to fight until effective climate policies will be implemented. We need a much stronger mass movement for this and campaigning around Waxnan-Markey can help us get one.
In today's radio address, Obama rightly emphasized the good parts of the bill, that an agreement has been hammered out at all, and he sends the right messages for the mass movement we have to build. See Joe Romm's commentary about it http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/16/obama-radio-address-for-the-first-time-utility-companies-and-corporate-leaders-are-joining-not-opposing-environmental-advocates-and-labor-leaders-to-create-a-new-system-of-clean-energy-initiati/ If this URL is too long, right now it is the top posting, therefore simply go to http://climateprogress.org/ Obama just declares victory and ignores the weaknesses of the bill. We, who are trying to build the mass movement, can be more critical, and should be more critical, in order to show that a mass movement is necessary. What should we concentrate on? According to the emails I have received, atg least two things are wrong with recent developments regarding W-M: 85% of the allowances will be issued for free to the biggest polluters, and the international offsets have been increased by 50% Regarding the grandfathering of 85% of the pollution rights, I would be relaxed about it. It is no secret that this is the tribute we have to pay to industry to get them on board; it is temporary and will have to be repealed soon, when it sinks in how far we are behind. Eventually it will have to be replaced by something where the credits are given to the population in equal amounts, not to the corporations. See for instance http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmenvaud/memo/carbonmarkets/et1502.htm I personally think we need an even stronger version, namely tradable carbon rations. But we are not there yet, the debate is under way. We should try to promote the debate amongst ourselves, but, as I said, in public we can be relaxed about it. Joe Romm has another argument why we can be relaxed. He wrote yesterday: > No doubt many environmentalists and progressives will be unhappy > with the amount of money that appear to go to polluters. But in > fact, most of that money goes to regulated entities, and the > regulators can and will make sure that the money goes to consumers > and businesses, as well as energy efficiency programs, and not > windfall profits. One of the progressive s leading experts on > utilities has agreed to write a guest blog post on this very subject > for me next week. http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/15/waxman-markey-allowances/ I am waiting for this guest blog :) Second, what about offsets? Joe Romm distinguishes domestic and international offsets and is relaxed about domestic offsets, see http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/12/waxman-markey-domestic-offsets/ But International offsets, the bad type, have been increased substantially, see the message below. This is something where we can perhaps make a difference, since everybody knows that such offsets are a joke. Let's pick our fights where we can make an impact, and at the same time do the grunt work of organizing, building the mass movement one person at a time. That is the main work we in the trenches have to do, and all the positive pronunciations of Obama and Romm depend on this movement coming about. Hans. ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 05:02:27 +0200 From: Oscar Reyes <[email protected]> To: No Carbon Trade <[email protected]> Subject: [Nocarbontrade-l] Even more international offsets in Waxman-Markey US climate bill Latest draft of US climate bill was just published. There now seems to be the potential for a limit of 1.5 billion international offsets (up from 1 billion) in US climate bill /every year/, which are now counted just like domestic cuts. To give a sense of the scale of this latest disaster, the UNEP CDM/JI Pipeline anticipates that /the total number of CDM/JI credits/ issued by 2012 will be 1.34 billion. In other words, US offsetting could chew up more offsets (and generate demand for way more of these projects) in 1 year than have been generated since CDM started through to end of first Kyoto commitment period... so they'll keep piling on the crap while pushing for more loopholes, sectoral nonsense, etc.... any other news from anyone in the US? something less depressing, preferably... == see p427 http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090515/hr2454.pdf ''(C) MODIFIED PERCENTAGES.---If the 4 Administrator determines that domestic offset 5 credits available for use in any calendar year at 6 domestic offset prices generally equal to or less 7 than allowance prices, are likely to offset less 8 than 0.9 billion tons of greenhouse gas emis- 9 sions measured in tons of carbon dioxide 10 equivalents, the Administrator shall increase 11 the percent of emissions that can be offset 12 through the use of international offset credits 13 (and decrease the percent of emissions that can 14 be allowed through the use of domestic offset 15 credits by the same amount) to reflect the 16 amount that 1.0 billion exceeds the number of 17 domestic offset credits the Administrator deter- 18 mines is available for that year, up to a max- 19 imum of 0.5 billion emissions. while this on same page means that the "discounting" of offsets won=B4t apply ''(D) INTERNATIONAL OFFSET CREDITS.--- 21 Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), to dem- 22 onstrate compliance prior to calendar year 23 2018, a covered entity may use 1 international 24 offset credit in lieu of an emission allowance up 25 to the amount permitted under this paragraph. - -- Oscar Reyes Transnational Institute De Wittenstraat 25 1052 AK Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: + 31 20 662 66 08 web: www.carbontradewatch.org / www.tni.org ------- End of forwarded message ------- 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
