Comments on: We Are the World http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/30/we-are-the-world/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:31:30 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Jason A http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/30/we-are-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-76011 Jason A Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:21:30 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=7481#comment-76011 Mark, The flipside is peak oil will make filthy, carbon-rich alternatives like oil shale and tar sands all the more attractive. Mark,

The flipside is peak oil will make filthy, carbon-rich alternatives like oil shale and tar sands all the more attractive.

]]> By: Charles Siegel http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/30/we-are-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-75961 Charles Siegel Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:37:02 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=7481#comment-75961 The key point to remember about Waxman-Markey is that we won't have another chance to stop the worst effects of global warming. Scientists agree that world CO2 emissions must peak by 2015 to keep temperature increases below 2 degrees C. If Waxman-Markey passes, it is possible that negotiators in Copenhagen will come up with a treaty that makes this possible. If Waxman-Markey fails, there will be years of delay before the world acts, and it will be impossible for emissions to peak as early as 2015. When moveon.org complains about Waxman-Markey "repealing part of the clean air act," they show that they are unclear on the concept of cap and trade. The whole point of cap and trade is that fossil fuels are so central to the economy that it is not economically feasible to phase them out using direct regulation under the clean air act. Instead, we need cap and trade to create a mechanism that lets the cheapest emission reductions occur first. It is perfectly appropriate for Waxman-Markey to say that cap and trade will substitute for the clean air act to control ghg emissions. Moveon.org might want to work to strengthen Waxman-Markey by increasing the short-term goal for CO2 reductions, which was weakened from 20% to 17% by 2020. It would make sense to try to get that back up to 20% or more. But their complaints about repealing the clean air act are a recipe for political failure, based on lack of understanding of the purpose of cap and trade. The key point to remember about Waxman-Markey is that we won't have another chance to stop the worst effects of global warming. Scientists agree that world CO2 emissions must peak by 2015 to keep temperature increases below 2 degrees C. If Waxman-Markey passes, it is possible that negotiators in Copenhagen will come up with a treaty that makes this possible. If Waxman-Markey fails, there will be years of delay before the world acts, and it will be impossible for emissions to peak as early as 2015.

When moveon.org complains about Waxman-Markey "repealing part of the clean air act," they show that they are unclear on the concept of cap and trade. The whole point of cap and trade is that fossil fuels are so central to the economy that it is not economically feasible to phase them out using direct regulation under the clean air act. Instead, we need cap and trade to create a mechanism that lets the cheapest emission reductions occur first. It is perfectly appropriate for Waxman-Markey to say that cap and trade will substitute for the clean air act to control ghg emissions.

Moveon.org might want to work to strengthen Waxman-Markey by increasing the short-term goal for CO2 reductions, which was weakened from 20% to 17% by 2020. It would make sense to try to get that back up to 20% or more.

But their complaints about repealing the clean air act are a recipe for political failure, based on lack of understanding of the purpose of cap and trade.

]]> By: David_K http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/30/we-are-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-75911 David_K Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:18:51 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=7481#comment-75911 An authoritative voice saying that the Waxman-Markey Act would be dangerous if passed because cap & trade would be meaningless is James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen contends that Waxman-Markey is nothing more than a feel-good measure (and thus dangerous in its soothing power to make us feel we've done something). He proposes that halting the creation of more coal-burning power plants, and taking existing plants off-line, is the only way to keep atmospheric carbon levels from reaching a point where the planet's climate would be catastrophically altered. Last week's New Yorker had an excellent profile on Hansen -- unfortch, it's no longer available for free on line -- however, there is a little blurb here about his arrest at a protest against coal plants: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/06/elizabeth-kolbert-james-hansen-the-arrested-scientist.html An authoritative voice saying that the Waxman-Markey Act would be dangerous if passed because cap & trade would be meaningless is James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen contends that Waxman-Markey is nothing more than a feel-good measure (and thus dangerous in its soothing power to make us feel we've done something). He proposes that halting the creation of more coal-burning power plants, and taking existing plants off-line, is the only way to keep atmospheric carbon levels from reaching a point where the planet's climate would be catastrophically altered. Last week's New Yorker had an excellent profile on Hansen -- unfortch, it's no longer available for free on line -- however, there is a little blurb here about his arrest at a protest against coal plants:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/06/elizabeth-kolbert-james-hansen-the-arrested-scientist.html

]]> By: Mark Walker http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/30/we-are-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-75901 Mark Walker Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:12:46 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=7481#comment-75901 Let me rework that: The peak oil crisis is likely to reduce the supply of oil, <i>and increase the price</i>, resulting in demand destruction, considerably sooner. I'm not saying it's a panacea or that terrible things aren't about to happen. But it will effectively put us on a radical fossil fuel diet well before 2100. Let me rework that: The peak oil crisis is likely to reduce the supply of oil, and increase the price, resulting in demand destruction, considerably sooner. I'm not saying it's a panacea or that terrible things aren't about to happen. But it will effectively put us on a radical fossil fuel diet well before 2100.

]]> By: Mark Walker http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/30/we-are-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-75881 Mark Walker Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:06:39 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=7481#comment-75881 The peak oil crisis may reduce supply, resulting in demand destruction, considerably sooner. I'm not saying it's a panacea or that terrible things aren't about to happen. But it will effectively put us on a radical fossil fuel diet well before 2100. The peak oil crisis may reduce supply, resulting in demand destruction, considerably sooner. I'm not saying it's a panacea or that terrible things aren't about to happen. But it will effectively put us on a radical fossil fuel diet well before 2100.

]]>