Byron Dorgan was right about the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Could he be right about cap and trade?

[flpoljunkie]

(Emphasis mine.)

Key Dem: Votes lacking to include climate change in energy bill
By Michael O'Brien
06/15/10

There aren't enough votes to include climate change rules in a Senate energy bill, a top Democrat said Tuesday.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), a senior member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, dismissed any hopes his colleagues might have of including regulations to clamp down on emissions as part of a comprehensive energy bill this summer.

"Now, there are others in Congress who would like to bring a climate change bill and add that ," Dorgan said Tuesday morning on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal."

"You know, it would take 60 votes in the Senate to do that," he added. "I doubt very much whether those 60 votes exist right now."

Dorgan said that while he supports a tax on carbon, he could not support a cap-and-trade program like the environmental regulation passed in the House a year ago. The North Dakota senator said he feared such a program would set up a carbon securities market with the potential for abuse.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/103227-key-dem-says-votes-lacking-to-include-climate-change-in-energy-bill

Also, this last night on cap and trade from Time's ecoblog:

Obama Calls for Energy Reform—But Doesn't Mention a Carbon Cap
Posted by Bryan Walsh
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 8:55 pm

It may be time to bury cap-and-trade.

Speaking in his first prime-time televised address from the Oval Office, President Barack Obama hit a range of topics. He promised the people of the Gulf Coast, and the rest of the country, that his Administration would do whatever it took to fight the BP oil spill—while warning us that it would take months and possibly years. He directed outrage at BP and told Americans that he would make sure, when meeting with BP CEO Tony Hayward on Wednesday, that the company would set aside money in an independently administered account that would go to compensate all those affected by the spill. He acknowledged—though did not apologize for—his own failures in pushing ahead on expanded offshore drilling before cleaning house at the Minerals Management Service, and announced that Michael R. Bromwich, a former Inspector General of the Justice Department, would lead the agency's much-needed reform. And he vowed to attack the root cause of spills like Deepwater Horizon—our decades-long addiction to oil, denied for far too long:

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

But though Obama went on to hail the promise of a clean energy economy, one that would produce "millions of good, middle-class jobs," and emphasized the need for government to set in and accelerate that transition, he made no mention of the policy that mainstream environmentalists have spent the last several years fighting for: carbon cap-and-trade. Just about every other idea had a cameo:

So I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development – and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

It's true that a carbon cap, which will chiefly impact electricity first, may not have that great an effect on oil use initially. But Presidents—even George W. Bush—have been calling for America to rethink its oil addiction for years, with no effect whatsoever. This time might really be different—there are ideas on the table that could make a real difference on oil use even without a carbon cap. Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, released a plan on Monday that he says could end American dependence on foreign oil by 2030, with ambitious targets for electric cars, energy efficiency and natural gas. (See David Roberts' smart take on the plan at Grist.)

And if Obama is really serious about changing some of the insane parts of our energy policy—like the fact that we spend less than $5 billion on energy R&D a year, a number that Bill Gates wants to triple—he could be truly revolutionary. There's evidence that cap-and-trade may not even be the best way to shift from fossil fuels—and it's certainly not an easy political sell any longer. But even though the votes don't seem to be there, if there were ever a time for Obama to really push a carbon cap, this moment was it. And he didn't. Environmentalists who've staked their reputation on a carbon price—including Al Gore, who called on the President after the speech to focus on a cap—will need to reckon with that.

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/06/15/obama-calls-for-energy-reform—but-doesnt-mention-a-carbon-cap/?xid=huffpo-direct

[Mass]

1. Dorgan is in the drill, baby drill crowd, particularly because of ND oil rush.

Now, I noticed the absence of commitment of Obama for any carbon tax, cap and trade, or carbon capping and it worried me.

[vaberella]

2. Another agenda, I guess. n/t

[ProSense]

3. He's one of the 14

Fourteen Democratic senators stick up for coal

[flpoljunkie]

6. Quite a list, though Dorgan said he supports a carbon tax.

The signatories on the letter defending coal-heavy polluters are Senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Mark Udall (D-Colo), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-12-fourteen-democratic-senators-stick-up-for-coal

[Mass]

8. A carbon tax alone does not work. This is the point. You need to cap to achieve the goals.

You could discuss the need for trade, but you need a cap and an enforcement mechanism going with the trade, otherwise, you are counting on the market.

[Teaser]

26. He says he supports a carbon tax

dollars to doughnuts he wouldn't vote for it if it was a realistic possibility. Fuck Dorgan.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. Interesting links. Thanks.

[Mass]

5. Another interesting point.

But even though the votes don't seem to be there, if there were ever a time for Obama to really push a carbon cap, this moment was it. And he didn't. Environmentalists who've staked their reputation on a carbon price—including Al Gore, who called on the President after the speech to focus on a cap—will need to reckon with that.

[flpoljunkie]

7. Yet, Obama must work with the Senate he has, not the Senate he'd like.

[Mass]

9. Sure, but he also needs to support good ideas. A bill without caps is worse than nothing.

It is possible that cap and ( tax, trade, ...) cannot pass, but it would be nice to see the president put some political capital behind it.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Will Obama lay it on the line if the Senate won't support a cap?

Or, will he try to get what he can from the Senate to move us toward a cleaner energy future?

[Mass]

11. It was an unique occasion to try. The fact he did not is disappointing.

I can only agree with Walsh about that.

Most environmentalists have said the Bingaman bill is worse than nothing.

[flpoljunkie]

23. Perhaps the speech was designed to focus more on BP. We will see what Obama does after today.

[zipplewrath]

13. Apparently the senate he'd like

Has Lieberman, Lincoln, and Spector.

He might actually have to work the senate a bit, instead of working over Kucinich. Would seem he's in a position to work over Lincoln at the very least. And Specter would seem to owe him at this point, with nothing to lose either. And since it has no insurance companies to protect, he ought to be able to get Lieberman.

[Mass]

16. Lieberman actually is rather good on these issues and support cap and trade.

[zipplewrath]

17. I suspected he would be

No coal mines in Conneticutt. And insurance companies don't care.

[Teaser]

25. That's irrelevant

The fact that cap and trade may be politically unworkable in the EVIL FUCKING SENATE matters much less than the fact that human society is unsustainable without some kind of carbon cap.

There's lots of ways to skin some political problems. However, physics doesn't always give us the same leeway.

[zipplewrath]

12. By any other name

Call it what you will. But if you don't someone restrict or otherwise demand reductions in carbon releases, you'll merely make it easier. If you ONLY demand increased efficiency, all you'll get is cheaper power, resulting in increased usage, resulting in NET increases in carbon releases. All the effort to improve efficiency will not reduce carbon if there is no incentive to reduce carbon. All the improvements in efficiency will be used to increase the amount of power sold. We've had increases in efficiency all along, and all its done is make the customer less sensetive to the cost. As car engines became more efficient, it became more economically viable to put bigger engines into bigger, heavier, cars.

My shit hot 1986 Rx-7 had 140 hp, and weighed about 2400 lbs. 0-60 in under 10 seconds. Today, you'll get a 3300 lb 4 door sedan with 240 hp that will do 0-60 in 8 seconds. They can generate more power, for roughly the same gas consumption, so they do.

If you don't restrict the carbon, all you'll get is more of it.

[joeglow3]

14. Why cap and trade???

This appears to be a somewhat complex structure, creating a lot more government jobs. Could you not have the same impact by simply creating a carbon tax as crap is mined? Everyone still ends up paying for it, although it is enforced much lower on the supply chain. Additionally, it would be a lot more uniform, easier to enforce, require less government resources and harder to get around.

[Mass]

15. You need the cap part. You could cap and tax, but you need the cap part.

Otherwise, all you do is penalize poor people who cannot change their cars, houses, ...

[flpoljunkie]

22. Maria Cantwell will make her case tomorrow at caucus meeting for 'cap and dividend.'

We certainly do need to work toward decreasing carbon emissions--with a cap or not.

[flpoljunkie]

18. Reid will host lunchtime meeting tomorrow dedicated solely to energy and climate for entire caucus

On Thursday, Reid will host a special lunchtime meeting dedicated solely to energy and climate for all 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus. Bingaman, Kerry and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), author of an alternative climate proposal, are scheduled to make 10-minute presentations before the closed-door meeting opens up into a forum over what's possible for Democrats to accomplish this year.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38599_Page2.html

[Mass]

19. Obama Punts on Climate - Matthew Yglesias

A view I tend to agree with.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/obama-punts-on-climate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+matthewyglesias+(Matthew+Yglesias)

Obama Punts on Climate
by myglesias
1 person liked this


The most important thing to keep in mind about the sort of “major” presidential speech we saw last night is that they don’t matter. At all. They don’t move votes in Congress. They don’t move public opinion. The bully pulpit method of governance doesn’t work. And that’s about the best I can say about Obama’s speech—even if it had been much better, it wouldn’t have done much good.

But as long as someone speaks in public, he’s inviting you to analyze his words. And on that score, the evaluation just can’t be very good. I understand that the Senate isn’t going to pass a comprehensive climate/energy plan that puts a price on carbon. I get that. Nevertheless, the right thing to do is to pass such a bill. A discussion of energy policy should say so. A discussion of energy policy should mention climate change. There’s more to be said about the benefits of energy reform than its role in averting climate catastrophe. And there’s more to improved energy policy than carbon pricing. But climate change is really important. And putting a price on carbon is really key to getting a handle on it. If you’re talking about these issues, you should say that stuff. And Obama didn’t.

Yesterday, the EPA completed its analysis of the American Power Act and found that it’s a highly affordable way to reduce emissions from greenhouse gasses. That would have been worth mentioning. If you’re not going to talk about this stuff, then why talk? There’s nothing wrong with settling for less than you wanted, but it’s downright weird to not even discuss what really needs to be done.

[msongs]

20. the MO is settle for less without even asking for the best lol nt

[flpoljunkie]

21. MSNBC: The R's think 'Obama came out swinging last night for an energy tax.'

Just now from Savannah Guthrie. Really?

[Teaser]

24. If there are no carbon caps, we are fucked.

It's that simple. Because even with green tech, we are going to generate more CO2. And what's going to happen if we get really, really efficient in our use of oil without a carbon cap?

Why, the uses of the efficient tech will expand to meet a new ceiling. CO2 generation will continue, at first more slowly, and the as uses for green tech ramp up, eventually reaching higher levels.

Production of CO2 will rise to meet demand.