CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world.


Cap And Trade Obama-wins-cap-and-trade

Published on September 18th, 2011 | by Susan Kraemer

11

Obama Wins Cap and Trade War to Cut Ozone Pollution

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

September 18th, 2011 by
 

Starting in January 2012, the EPA will implement the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) cap and trade program that will put a cap on ground-level ozone (smog) nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide that cross state lines. The EPA cap and trade program will achieve similar results to last year’s climate bill, making coal less attractive financially than clean energy.

The Obama administration may have lost the battle but it has won the war. Last year, the Waxman-Markey climate bill (which capped coal plant pollution, in order to curtail climate change) was killed in the Senate (Republican filibuster) after passing the then heavily Democratic House.

Now, with no climate bill, it will be the EPA’s own cap and trade under the CSAPR starting in January that will cut climate change, one of several EPA actions which which will curtail the use of coal. The loss will be made up by shifting to more natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, biomass and eventually ocean energy and nuclear power for electricity. The coal industry can also, to some extent, clean up as well.

The EPA has successfully administered cap and trade systems in the past. EPA cap and trade got the lead from our gasoline and EPA cap and trade got the acid from our rain, (and under the Montreal Protocol, international cap and trade is closing the stratospheric ozone hole over Antarctica). So it has a long history of success in putting a cap on pollution, and then ratcheting it down, using cap and trade.

Under cap and trade, dirty power plants must cap pollution. That is the cap. Dirty power plants must pay money to the cleaner power plants. That is the trade (in “emissions quotas”). The money from the dirty power plants pays for the new technology that the clean power plants install to emit less pollution. It is simple, and costs taxpayers little or less than nothing: the CBO score of the climate cap and trade bill showed a net gain of $60 billion over the next eight years, for example.

Republicans have mounted CRA resolutions to put an end to the implementation of the cap and trade plan by the EPA ( S.J. Res 27 and  H.R. 2891) but Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions can be vetoed by the president, and overcoming a presidential veto would take 67 votes in the Senate. With only 47 Republicans, that would be about as hard for them as it has been over these last 5 years for a Democratic majority of under 60 (for all but a few months) to overcome the persistent Republican filibuster, which only takes 40 votes.

Surprisingly, the shoe is on the other foot.

Susan Kraemer
(syndicate this article here)

 

 

 

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Print Friendly

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , ,


About the Author

writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times.    Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.



  • Cjbailey7777

    Climate Change? Really? When will you wake up and realize that no one believes in man-made climate change anymore? Forget about influencing the environment and start helping humans find jobs! Seriously!

    • Anonymous

      Are you kidding?

      First of all, 83% of Americans believe in global warming now (http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/16/321246/public-opinion-world-is-warming-rick-perry-reports-reuters/)

      which is not really a surprise since the following organizations have backed up the climate scientists and said that global warming is happening and is caused by humans (and we need to do something about it):

      U.S. Agency for International Development
      United States Department of Agriculture
      National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
      National Institute of Standards and Technology
      United States Department of Defense
      United States Department of Energy
      National Institutes of Health
      United States Department of State
      United States Department of Transportation
      U.S. Geological Survey
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
      National Center for Atmospheric Research
      National Aeronautics & Space Administration
      National Science Foundation
      Smithsonian Institution
      International Arctic Science Committee
      Arctic Council
      African Academy of Sciences
      Australian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
      Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
      Cameroon Academy of Sciences
      Royal Society of Canada
      Caribbean Academy of Sciences
      Chinese Academy of Sciences
      Académie des Sciences, France
      Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
      Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
      Indonesian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Irish Academy
      Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
      Indian National Science Academy
      Science Council of Japan
      Kenya National Academy of Sciences
      Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
      Academy of Sciences Malaysia
      Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
      Nigerian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Society of New Zealand
      Polish Academy of Sciences
      Russian Academy of Sciences
      l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
      Academy of Science of South Africa
      Sudan Academy of Sciences
      Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
      Tanzania Academy of Sciences
      Turkish Academy of Sciences
      Uganda National Academy of Sciences
      The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
      National Academy of Sciences, United States
      Zambia Academy of Sciences
      Zimbabwe Academy of Science
      American Academy of Pediatrics
      American Association for the Advancement of Science
      American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
      American Astronomical Society
      American Chemical Society
      American College of Preventive Medicine
      American Geophysical Union
      American Institute of Physics
      American Medical Association
      American Meteorological Society
      American Physical Society
      American Public Health Association
      American Quaternary Association
      American Institute of Biological Sciences
      American Society of Agronomy
      American Society for Microbiology
      American Society of Plant Biologists
      American Statistical Association
      Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
      Botanical Society of America
      Crop Science Society of America
      Ecological Society of America
      Federation of American Scientists
      Geological Society of America
      National Association of Geoscience Teachers
      Natural Science Collections Alliance
      Organization of Biological Field Stations
      Society of American Foresters
      Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
      Society of Systematic Biologists
      Soil Science Society of America
      Australian Coral Reef Society
      Australian Medical Association
      Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      Engineers Australia
      Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
      Geological Society of Australia
      British Antarctic Survey
      Institute of Biology, UK
      Royal Meteorological Society, UK
      Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
      Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      European Federation of Geologists
      European Geosciences Union
      European Physical Society
      European Science Foundation
      International Association for Great Lakes Research
      International Union for Quaternary Research
      International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
      World Federation of Public Health Associations
      World Health Organization
      World Meteorological Organization

      more links on why they support the climate scientists:

      http://planetsave.com/2010/08/18/humans-cause-global-warming-10-indicators/

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

      and, lastly, it seems you didn’t notice that we have a whole category dedicated to josb and we write on the matter a TON.

      but i have a feeling you’re not a CT reader..

  • http://twitter.com/JourneyHomeBook Paul Burke

    Well how do you do – the President gets a “win” – and therefore the middle class does as well. Will this story go out on the AP Wire- will Faux News announce it – will corporate media trumpet it – no I didn’t think so – its up to all of us to circulate this story far and wide – I’ll do my part – will you?

    • Anonymous

      Thanks, totally agree.

      Great find by Susan.

    • Anonymous

      You’re missing one key point:

      This will create jobs, not kill them.

      • Cjbailey7777

        Tell me how this creates jobs? You tax a company for pollution… 1. it now has to pay a penalty/tax 2. It can’t fix the pollution, just paid a penalty 3. raises prices to cover the penalty/tax 4. lays off employees to pay for recession of sales because of higher prices 5. goes bankrupt, everyone loses their jobs and government covers losses.

        I fail to see new jobs…

        • Anonymous

          haha, if only…

          it CAN pollute less. it would do so by investing in new and better technology, which has to be developed and built by people, which creates good U.S. jobs.

          there is no evidence that regulation kills jobs, on the whole.

          it may create jobs for new technologies and services and some jobs in old technology markets may be lost. but generally, that means creating MORE jobs

          we don’t use whale oil anymore. we don’t use torches anymore. we don’t heat our buildings with sticks. did a transition away from these things make us lose jobs?

    • Cjbailey7777

      Obama win = American people loss

  • None

    So.. the Obama administration works to destroy more American jobs. Hurray?

    Fortunately, this scam will only last until Obama is thrown from office.

  • Anonymous

    This is awesome! Thanks for the post, Susan :D

    Fun read, too :D

  • Anonymous

    Yes.

Back to Top ↑