User login
Navigation
A Tale of Two Bills
...or at least some links to info about them...
I’ve really let things go lately; sorry about that. The big news has obviously been legislation being pushed through Congress, namely the energy bill and the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development, an “alternative” to the Kyoto Protocol. Both of these bills have been covered to death by more thoughtful authors than myself, so rather than weighing in on them with pounds measured in redundancy, I’ll simply offer links (below the fold) to the one or two readers out there who haven’t already read up.
Energy Bill:
In general, the bill (a) incents more production through generous subsidies to the energy industry, but with some increasing emphasis on renewables (b) invests heavily in long-term, high-ticket technologies (hydrogen, fusion, clean coal, next-generation nuclear) (c) does essentially nothing for the short- to medium-term to reduce the consumption of petroleum.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005, expected to be signed soon by President Bush, contains $2 billion in subsidies to the first 6 energy companies that build a nuclear power plant. Chances are good that NC will get at least one of these.
Is the energy bill really a farm bill? Because that's what it looks like to me. And to Jim Lucier of Prudential Securities, who took the words right out of my mouth on Tuesday's Kudlow & Company. In all of the commentary and analysis that I have read, very few people believe that this bill will do anything constructive to remove obstacles to competitive electricity markets, reduce our overall energy consumption, or provide valuable direction to energy technology research. Its most noticeable provision amounts to little more than a farm subsidy under a different name.
The nation's editorial boards have not taken kindly to this bill. The folks at Campaign for America's Future sent around a sampling of responses, which I've included below the fold. I've added some links.
[You’ll have to click over to check out Dave’s roundup, it’s far too extensive to quote. –Ed.]
Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development:
One thing I can say: I'm fairly suspicious of any analysis that starts like this:
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
A simple question: If the Bush administration's new climate change agreement with India, Australia, China, South Korea, and Japan is not an attack on Kyoto, then why doesn't the agreement (which focuses, inoffensively, upon technological fixes to control emissions) include more Kyoto participants?
the criticisms of the outline for the plan are coming hard, and given the secretive nature of this pact, the environmental community has a right to be concerned. Another Reuters piece provides an overview of criticisms, with a focus on the plan's voluntary nature and lack of specific goals. The Tapei Times labels the plan "Kyoto-lite," and notes (as did Odograph) that all of the countries involved are big coal producers. An observation: coal was once "modern technology"... in the 19th century...
The debate over command and control versus incentives is about to heat up. From Reuters (U.S. to announce 'Beyond Kyoto' climate pact) [...]I especially like this quote:
"A deal on climate change that doesn't limit pollution is the same as a peace plan that allows guns to be fired," said Jennifer Morgan, head of the WWF's climate change program.
I don't agree, but points for creativity.
When the details of the APP4CDC come out, I'd like us all to start scouring it for potential pressure points. What are the elements of the agreement that could turn out to be useful tools for forcing more change, faster change, better change than the negotiators intended? How can we use it in ways that actually can get us to where we want to go? What parts of the treaty can be re-framed in ways that strengthen the bright green approach, moving us to real emissions reduction and disaster avoidance? Think of it as memetic judo, cognitive tai chi, an attempt to use the energy of the agreement in ways that the signatory governments wouldn't expect.
(This entry is packed full of HTML that I didn't take the time to double check because it's past my bedtime; if you run into any broken links just lemme know in the comments.)
