November 10, 2009 04:28 PM

RE: Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade?

Urging Passage Of Senate Energy Bill As long as the energy bill remains on hold, we’ll continue to forgo its potential benefits. Substance aside, the process was enough to kill the climate bill in the EPW Committee. Climate legislation will require support from both sides of the aisle, but the only bipartisan feature of that bill was the opposition to it. It’s past time to start discussing what comes next. It’s important to act on climate change – but it’s more important to get it right. To develop a policy that balances environmental progress with economic strength, we must fully…  Read more

October 9, 2009 11:26 AM

RE: Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade?

As the week wraps up, I’ve been asked to post a few concluding comments on this thread.  I’d like to start by thanking the National Journal for this opportunity and all of the experts who submitted responses.  While my intention was not to endorse one approach to climate policy over another, I do think it has been valuable to broaden the conversation and re-examine some proposals that are now habitually left out of it. Again, I believe it’s important to act quickly on climate change – but it’s more important to find the right policy.  Whenever the slower pace…  Read more

October 7, 2009 11:32 AM

RE: Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade?

Both the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer climate bills would do much more than put a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Only about 200 of Waxman-Markey’s 1,428 pages are devoted to creating a carbon market; the rest would impose an unprecedented series of new federal programs, standards and requirements. The Kerry-Boxer proposal puts the Senate on the same track.  A long bill is not necessarily a bad bill, and some ideas, such as the creation of a Clean Energy Deployment Administration, are worth pursuing as complementary policies. But this year’s climate bills stand in stark contrast to those introduced last Congress…  Read more