• http://getstarted.nexyoo.me/ Nexyoo

    Interesting. I wonder what the chances are of it being revised to provide steeper emissions reductions, so that it would be comparable to the competing bills.

  • Timothy B. Hurst

    I think you make a good point. Similarly, I wonder if the the emissions reductions targets could be structured with a throttling mechanism of some sort that could be adjusted as the economy recovers.

  • http://liveoakmedia.net Matt

    I think this is the best framework for reducing CO2 emissions I’ve seen so far and the most politically viable.

    Personally, I’d prefer a straight carbon tax. I don’t mind the cost being passed on to the consumer. Nothing’s free in this world, but our society in general doesn’t want to pay for anything. That being said I think this method of passing the revenues back on to tax payers is a good way to appease those concerns.

  • Pingback: New “Cap & Rebate” Climate Bill Proposal Will Give You $1,100 a Year? : CleanTechnica

  • Susan Kraemer

    If “the family of four” gets the money cash, I don’t see how it would reduce emissions. What is to stop them buying more junk with it; increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

    But – if it were directed into a special “solar panel account” for that “family-of-four”, then it would be great. (Or wind turbine, or geothermal, or insulation improvement account etc)

    That use of cap and trade (creating the funding to put in renewables and efficiency to replace old energy) is essentially what the current cap and trade bill does; it incentivizes investment in renewable energy by the companies that make greenhouse gas emissions by making all our crap.

    I think that is a more efficient use of the funds. It has worked for SOx and NOx to reduce acid rain. But nobody understands it.

    • Susan Kraemer

      Actually, I want to correct that.

      “it incentivizes investment in renewable energy by the companies that make greenhouse gas emissions by making fossil energy. ”

      The companies affected are the coal and oil companies that emit over 25,000 tons a year, there’s only 4,000 – 8,000 affected.

  • Timothy B. Hurst

    Susan, I think the idea behind it is to make the bill more palatable for folks in the midwest and south that get the bulk of their energy from coal. The majority of the funds would, in fact, be sunk into clean energy while just 25% would be returned to try and help deal with rising fuel costs.

    The bill’s simplicity and political attractiveness may be its strongest points. And in the current economic and political climates, I don’t know if we should expect much better.

    Cap and trades worked for SOx and NOx, in part, because we could identify the point-sources. CO2, on the other hand, has many more sources. And the most elusive of those sources is automobiles. Levying a tax on the producer makes sure that the fossil fuel is covered by a paid permit, regardless of where it ends up or who uses it.

  • Pingback: New “Cap & Rebate” Climate Bill Proposal Will Give You $1,100 a Year? « Smart Power Community