Is the McDermott Bill the real thing?
POST: Is the McDermott Bill the real thing?
| Topics: |  Tim Speaks, Solutions |
I've read over the McDermott Climate Bill (HR 1683), and at first glance it seems to be legit. No offsets, no trading, no bullshit. Am I mistaken? Please take a look at this and let's figure this out together. Here's a line that jumped out at me:
Sec 9902 (b) (3) A Federal emission permit may not be sold, exchanged or otherwise transferred.
Really?
If this is the real deal legislation we've been waiting for we need to unleash everything we've got. This is in the House Energy and Commerce Committee right now. Jim Matheson is a key member of that committee. If we want his to do anything for this bill, we need to moving. If it is a strong bill, his committee will probably try to castrate it, so we need to be on them like fat kids on cake.
Comments
Posted by Hans Ehrbar on March 28, 2009 7:23 pm
This bill is an ingenious mix between a tax and cap and trade, which
avoids the worst drawbacks of both. Let me explain.
A tax has the drawback that it is almost impossible to know how high
the tax has to be to get the desired effect. Another drawback is that
the word "tax" is considered a four-letter word in the US. Even
without offsets and without grandfathering, a cap and trade has the
drawback that it invites speculation and manipulation and that
historically, carbon prices have been extremely volatile. How does
McDermott avoid these drawbacks?
Under the McDermott bill, the polluters have to purchase permits
directly from the government at prices set by the government. No
trading allowed. This looks like a tax which doesn't want to call
itself a tax but uses the terminology of a permit market. Yet there
is a big difference. The Bill does not specify the tax rate, but it
specifies a declining schedule of permit quantities to be issued from
now to 2050. The government institution which issues the permits has
the task to set the issue price a level that equalizes demand and
supply, while at the same time planning the development of these
prices for 5 years ahead of time, so that the firms can make their
investments based on sound information.
In my view this is a good bill, this is probably as good as it gets
if you only look at price signals. I think it should be supported
with the understanding that it must be complemented by large
government investments in research and infrastrucure,. and by a
national Feed-In Tariff legislation.
Posted by Jacob Hanson on March 29, 2009 9:31 pm
Rep. McDermott sounds like a lucid and capable guy. He said in a blog about this bill:
"HR 1683 would enable producers of greenhouse gas emissions to plan and change, because they can calculate their costs and return on investment as they reduce their carbon footprint. At the same time as establishing a firm cap on emissions, we provide some price certainty would be an incentive for investors in renewable energy production projects.
...
The clock is ticking down and we are dangerously close to a tipping point when reversing the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet may be out of our control. If there was ever a time to stand together, this is it, because standing alone will not address the crisis or save the planet."
I am definitely willing to back him and his bill with whatever it takes. It is going to take a lot of work to get this through, but it's great to already have a start.
Posted by Jacob Hanson on March 29, 2009 9:31 pm
Here is the URL of that blog, by the way:
http://blog.thehill.com/2009/03/25/together-%E2%80%93-or-else-rep-jim-mcdermott/
Posted by Teresa Marino on November 20, 2009 4:00 pm
Hans- thank you for explaining the bill, very very helpful, I've tried to read it but I'm never fully comfortable with my grasp on the terms used.
Jacob-Thanks for the link!
Tim-rock on
Teresa