Sen. Boxer Lays Out Guiding Principles for Legislative Action on Climate Change
This morning, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbra Boxer (D-CA), along with the Democratic members of her Committee, rolled out a long awaited set of principles that will shape an upcoming climate change bill. These principles are very general and offer little guidance for those attempting to predict the future of emissions control programs. Senator Boxer’s response to reporters’ questions were somewhat more illuminating. Sen. Boxer outlined three major points in her answers:
First was the tacit admission by Senator Boxer that last year’s bill was too complicated and too prescriptive to pass and that this year’s effort will leave more room for the executive branch to design and implement a cap and trade system. She left it open whether the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Future Trading Commission would have the primary regulatory oversight responsibility for carbon trading. This appears to have foreclosed talk of establishing a new federal bureaucracy to establish rules and monitor the market—a key criticism of the previous bill. It also creates questions regarding the role of the Environmental Protection Agency in implementing the carbon cap and trade system.
Second, Senator Boxer seemed to dismiss the idea of a carbon tax as an alternative to a cap-and-trade system. While she said she was open to all ideas on curbing greenhouse gas emissions, she seemed skeptical of claims by some economists that a carbon tax would be more effective than a cap and trade system. She failed, however, to cite reasons for her skepticism.
Finally she noted that nuclear, while not an answer in and of itself, must be part of the solution. This is a big concession and one that could bring crucial Republican votes in passing a bill. There have been indications that there are a substantial number of Republican votes waiting for some sign that nuclear will be part of a national energy strategy. This is crucial to many southern Republicans whose home state utilities and rate payers (i.e. voters) cannot depend on renewable energy in a meaningful way and are opposed to renewable portfolio standards.
See a video of the press conference here.
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 PM
[…] Daniel Rosenblum Sen. Boxer Lays Out Guiding Principles for Legislative Action on Climate Change (ClimateIntel) Filed under […]
February 4th, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I was disappointed that the plan wasn’t more detailed or comprehensive. Moreover, we need to stop talking about a flawed cap and trade scheme and start talking about a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The bottom line is that we need to avoid the evasion and market manipulation that plague cap and trade schemes all while providing incentives to create new, climate-friendly technologies. http://www.climatetaskforce.org
February 5th, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Disappointing is Sen Boxer’s arbitrary rejection of the Carbon Tax. A well-designed and implemented Carbon Tax is far and away the most practical, just and efficient way to get a grip on CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.
It seems safer by far to shout out any of George Carlin’s “Seven Dirty Words” than to even whisper the word “Tax”. America, it’s time to grow up.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:26 AM
On its face, a carbon tax seems to be an easier and simpler mechanism to create incentives to reduce GHG emissions. Tax proponents need to recognize that a tax system is equally susceptible to evasion and market manipulation.
For proof, all that is needed is a look at the Internal Revenue Code. Tax on income ought to be “practical, just and efficient,” but the Code is loaded with deductions, credits, deferrals, etc.
Why would a “carbon tax” be immune from these complexities?
Also, if the goal is environmental integrity, how do carbon tax proponents address the potential for future Congresses, for a host of reasons, could reduce tax rates in times of economic difficulties?