Cap & Betrayed
- added April 27, 2008
- 0 responses
-
-
-
- tlpatten
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- Earth and Science (12427)
- Environment (5486)
- Policy (44)
- Carbon Caps (8)
I admit that, like many Virginians, I follow the Washington Post, but every once in a while, because I lived in DC for a bit, I like to check out The Hill. The Hill is an interesting rag, and often has little newsy bits about developments that may impact policy but weren't considered important enough to make it into the big papers. It's a slow day, so I surfed over to the site to find out what they considered front-page news.
Oh, the betrayal! The Environmental Defense Fund has come out in favor of cap & trade! < Dramatic roll of eyes, limp hand-waving, fake swoon... >
Seriously, their own recommendations in their own words (available at http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5405 ) are much more certain and less dry than The Hill's cover article. "The cost of capping global warming pollution over the next two decades is almost too small to measure."
If cap & trade will cost us virtually nothing, then why isn't EDF recommending we go further?
This is going to be unpalatable to some people, but why aren't we swinging the grassroots momentum for a carbon tipping fee? Think of it this way: Every municipality I know of has littering fees. Most localities have fees for garbage pick-up. If you dump your garbage on the side of the road and get caught, you will be fined. Why? Because rotting garbage is unsightly, smelly, and poses health risks. Polluting in that sense has had fines, fees, costs and criminal charges associated with it for decades.
Carbon pollution is still garbage--it's unsightly, smelly, and poses health risks. Cap & trade does nothing to target transportation; it affects refineries, factories, power plants and other industry carbon sources. A carbon tipping fee would encourage individuals to take more personal responsibility as carbon consumers, as well as hitting the industrial/business sector.
I know it was a countermove in a fight over a particular bill, I feel just a tad betrayed by EDF because, given their findings, I would have liked them to swung the bat for something more.
Oh, the betrayal! The Environmental Defense Fund has come out in favor of cap & trade! < Dramatic roll of eyes, limp hand-waving, fake swoon... >
Seriously, their own recommendations in their own words (available at http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5405 ) are much more certain and less dry than The Hill's cover article. "The cost of capping global warming pollution over the next two decades is almost too small to measure."
If cap & trade will cost us virtually nothing, then why isn't EDF recommending we go further?
This is going to be unpalatable to some people, but why aren't we swinging the grassroots momentum for a carbon tipping fee? Think of it this way: Every municipality I know of has littering fees. Most localities have fees for garbage pick-up. If you dump your garbage on the side of the road and get caught, you will be fined. Why? Because rotting garbage is unsightly, smelly, and poses health risks. Polluting in that sense has had fines, fees, costs and criminal charges associated with it for decades.
Carbon pollution is still garbage--it's unsightly, smelly, and poses health risks. Cap & trade does nothing to target transportation; it affects refineries, factories, power plants and other industry carbon sources. A carbon tipping fee would encourage individuals to take more personal responsibility as carbon consumers, as well as hitting the industrial/business sector.
I know it was a countermove in a fight over a particular bill, I feel just a tad betrayed by EDF because, given their findings, I would have liked them to swung the bat for something more.
Login/Registration is required to add a response.
