House passes energy/climate bill: to celebrate or not?

So the house narrowly passed the energy and climate bill last Friday, which, among other things, would put a cap on CO2 emissions for the first time and allow trading of credits. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say yes, celebrate whatever wins we can get on behalf of our climate. This is the first step in turning the corner, and I believe eventually we are going to turn that corner. But realistically, there are several "mitigating factors":

1. The opposition seems as intransigent as ever. All I ever heard out of (mainly Republican) opponents is that the bill was in effect a tax and that it would kill jobs. No mention of the seriousness of climate change, no offer of an alternative. I'm amazed these folks seem to be pushing the same old policies, they seem to be oblivious of the threat from rising global temperatures. For me personally, it was a good lesson in how dug in they are in their position, I had underestimated it.

2. In order to pass, many of the ambitious objectives of the original bill were scaled back. The path for reducing CO2 and ramping up renewable energy is not as steep. Gone is the 100% auction of carbon credits. I suspect that if this bill becomes law, in the coming years as climate change continues to play out we will find that the targets are too low and we will need to pass another bill to increase them.

3. The operative word is "IF this bill becomes law." We are told that the Senate is less ambitious than the house about energy and climate change, so their eventual bill in the fall will need to be reconciled with the House bill, and then sent to the president, all before Christmas in a very busy legislative year.

So yes, if you can stomach all those ifs and buts, then please join me in cheering for HR 2998 "American Clean Energy and Security Act."

Two thoughts on new Obama fuel economy standards

Two thoughts on the new proposed fuel economy standards announced May 19th:

1. Beware of newscasters getting sloppy with the language and saying this will reduce CO2 emissions 30% by 2016. First this is a laboratory standard, and usually there is some "slip" between what happens in the lab and what happens on the road. Second, it applies only to new vehicle sales: it will take some time for the new standard to work its way through the national vehicle fleet as new cars replace old. Third, it says nothing about how much people will drive the new cars, if the amount of driving continues to grow, that will undercut the technological improvements.

2. About the added cost of meeting the standards: if it costs an extra $1,300 or whatever to buy the same car that meets the standard, why don't we all go out and buy a slightly smaller car for $1,300 less? The costs cancel out, and, all other things equal, the slightly smaller/cheaper car cuts even more CO2.