Biggest Corporate Giveaway in History to Come This Fall on Global Warming

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 15:54


( - promoted by Chris Bowers)

centrist.jpg

Scott Paul at the Washington Note reports something that I heard about a month ago from a Bush administration insider.  The Bush adminstration is going to stop denying global warming and is preparing to regulate the economy.

For starters, the White House official said - to the surprise of perhaps everyone in the room - that the administration is not opposed to a domestic cap & trade regime. I'm still having trouble swallowing this, but the official maintains that the administration has always been open to considering a proposal that doesn't involve international carbon markets. I'll believe it when I see it.

That's a really really big deal.  Now, let's be real, the Bush administration is not interested in dealing with global warming.  They don't change their minds on an issue like this without a really good political reason.  And that reason is pretty simple - being able to regulate the economy with the ostensible purpose of reducing carbon creates the ability to hand out tens of billions of dollars to carbon emitting industries.  Yes, it's Healthy Forests and no Child Left Behind all over again, only this time we're dealing with global warming.

This time it's going to be called 'Cap and Trade', which I've blogged about before.  A Cap and Trade system means the government creates a system to distribute carbon credits, or the right to emit carbon, and gives them to industry to trade or use.  By gradually lowering the carbon cap, carbon emissions are ostensibly reduced.  That's the theory, anyway.  Economist Rob Shapiro tears the system apart in this very readable paper which points out that an economy-wide cap and trade is rife with cheating and gives money precisely to the industries who are doing the emitting.  That's why Bush is shifting on carbon regulation.

Anyway, the bill he's going to get behind is the Lieberman-Warner bill, opposed by the Sierra Club but supported by the intensely corporate-friendly and compromised Environmental Defense.  There's a green civil war coming, with ED President Fred Krupp playing the role of the DLC.  The other environmental groups are split, with the Pew Center and the Nature Conservancy following Krupp over the cliff.  The Union of Concerned Scientists and NRDC are 'concerned', and the LCV and the Sierra Club are clear that this is a bad move.  If you want to see a dysfunctional, degraded, and compromised movement that have lost touch with their mission statements, look no further than ED, Pew, and the Nature Conservancy.

The one other very significant statement Paul quotes is that the Bush administration is strongly opposed to international carbon markets.  That's a hint that this legislation is not meant to address carbon.  Carbon is not like other pollutants.  If you emit it anywhere on the planet is has the same effect.  By refusing to make this a global market, all the Bush administration is trying to do is raise the costs of emitting carbon in America while keeping the costs lower in other countries.  That has the effect of accelerating out-sourcing of jobs, reducing the leverage of labor, and increasing the leverage of international business elites.  One thing is does not do is reduce carbon emissions, since a factory here can be moved to China quite easily at this point if there's a carbon price differential.

All in all, it's a terrible legislative package coming to the floor in the fall.  We need to be prepared to beat this back viciously.  We get one bite at this apple.

Matt Stoller :: Biggest Corporate Giveaway in History to Come This Fall on Global Warming

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Not To Pimp My Own Diary, But.... (0.00 / 0)
It's more than a week old, and doesn't everyone always say that California leads the nation?  Well, like the stopped clock that's right twice a day, this time it might actually be true.

It's a very timely cautionary tale:  Promise Like Gore, Deliver Like Bush? (Schwarzenegger On Global Warming).

Also see: my most recent comment: Trusted Bush: The Dog Ate My Homework.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Nice Catch (4.00 / 1)
Yup, not only will they figure out a way to make this profitable without doing anything, you are most assuredly correct that by not making this a global trading relationship, i.e. other nations can emit all of the damn carbon they want to, we'll have even more offshore outsourcing of industry and corporations will not only hunt the globe for the latest cheap labor market, tax incentives and other "goodies" to exploit, now they will seek out the most exploitable environmental standards on an accelerator (as if there is anything left in the United States these days that has not been offshore outsourced?).

Great story, this is why I read the blogs, this puppy I doubt I'll see in MSM.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


what's the plan, then? (4.00 / 1)
Nice post.  What should we be doing to mobilize for the fight?

bite hard and don't let go (4.00 / 1)
I've been reading Open Left basically since day 1, and what I've been most impressed with by far has been the ability to take on a project, such as net neutrality, and particularly the spectrum sale, and just focus intently on it, drilling at it with both a long-term perspective, and a short-term urgency. that kind of approach is exactly what is needed for this (honestly *fucking* crucial) issue.

to fail here would be to let bush of all people define the terms of how to deal with the greatest challenge of our time.


One thing OpenLeft could focus on (0.00 / 0)
I'd really like to see OpenLeft lead a discussion on what the progressive vision of cap-and-trade allocations looks like.

Cap-and-trade is very, very similar to the concept behind the spectrum sale. The spectrum and the atmospheric carbon carrying capacity are both finite resources in the form of a public commons. The government regulates and granted ownership of use the spectrum; it does not yet regulate use of the carbon capacity of the atmosphere (i.e., regulate GHG pollution).

Making people pay in proportion to their pollution makes sense, as does making sure that the total amount of pollution goes down.

The choices of how to allocate the spectrum, how people pay to control their part of it, and the allowed uses of it determine whether we have open, distributed, decentralized, democratic, neutral communications or closed and controlled communications.

Similarly, how emissions credits are distributed, how the auction takes place, and what constraints are put on the use determines whether a cap-and-trade system protects centralized polluting industry or encourages decentralized control of power use and production.

OpenLeft would be the perfect forum for a discussion on the progressive vision of cap-and-trade allocations.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox