It’s a big week for proponents of a national carbon cap-and-trade system, as the Climate Security Act is working its way to the Senate floor (you can read more about it in these recent articles from the New York Times and the Washington Post).
The jury is still out on whether or not the bill will pass the Senate (and, if it does, if it could pass the House or get the President’s signature), but it appears likely that this particular cap-and-trade bill will receive more support than similar proposals that failed in 2003 and 2005. So we’re making some progress.
The major complaint from the bill’s opponents is that it will cost too much. And no one is denying that cutting carbon will be costly. But, as you’ve no doubt noticed at the gas pump this Spring, our current energy infrastructure is already costly, and implementing a cap-and trade program that will spur the development of alternative energy technologies will help get us moving towards a viable, long-term energy strategy.
This isn’t to say that the bill is perfect in its current form. I, for one, would like to see it include more incentives to replace current fossil fuel use with nuclear power. But this bill is big a step in the right direction. We’ll keep you updated on the Climate Security Act as it moves forward.
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 5th, 2008 at 9:19 am and is filed under Alternative Energy Technology, Cap and Trade, Politics/Government . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
This legislation, and McCain’s support for it, is one reason I will never vote for him. I understand the concern of some for this type of legislation, but I am severly critical of the actual benefits, (If any) Are you supporting it be cause it will spur alternate enrgy sources? The high price of petroleum now will already do that job quite effective;y without additional economic upheaval/ On a practical side, just today at church services, a truck driver commented how the current situation will hurt those with the least resources the most, since they can’t afford to upgrade, and even an upgrade isn’t going to make up the difference in cost, which is still uncertain of whether it is going to stabilize, or continue to rise. While the actual benefits of lower carbon emmissions are uncertain, the resulting economic damage is not. I am reminded of a similiar proposal dating back some years, affecting the DFW area, where I reside. It involved EPA “punishment” for exceeded “Ozone” emmissions, which is another contraversy in itself. Anyway, it was required by the EPA, for there to be reformulated gasoline AND a mandatory emmission test run directly by the state, presumably so there would be no cheating. Of course, form what I understand, the MTBE containing reformulated gasoline did little or nothing for Ozone and had its own polution problem and now still exists in the area’s waterways. The inspection system, was based upon an underestimated population of vehicles, and wouldn’t have worked anyway. So please! Explain why Cap and Trade won’t be an even bigger waste!