Energy-only

Steve Cohen has an op-ed over at the Huffington Post about the merits of an energy-only strategy, one that may be more politically workable without climate initiatives. Cohen:

"...I really think that in addition to moving energy technology off the shelf into more rapid use, we need to focus resources and attention on energy research. Research should focus on solar cells and batteries, smart grids, carbon capture and storage, non-fission nuclear, wind and geothermal technologies. We need to unleash our brainpower on all the possible solutions to the transition to the post-fossil fuel energy economy. Just as defense and interstate highways steered economic development in the US after World War II, investment in the energy future can make our economy more efficient, secure and prosperous in the 21st century...The Defense Department invented the internet, but at a crucial point in its development, the department made an effort to commercialize the web through the private sector."

Cohen points out that, even lacking a price on carbon or a federal cap™ program, the EPA still has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). The KGL bill is expected to limit that authority, as well as state and regional efforts to reduce carbon emissions - efforts like the RGGI and the WCI.

We'll see what happens next, but I emphatically agree with Mr. Cohen's sentiments on federal investment in energy infrastructure and research.

Cap™

There have been many public eulogies for cap-and-trade (or cap™, my preferred moniker) lately, not least from optimist sources like the New York Times and people who really ought to know better like Sen. Lindsay Graham.

But here is what Robert Stavins has to say:

Although cap-and-trade has fallen dramatically in political favor in Washington as the US answer to climate change, this approach to reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions is by no means "dead."

The frequent pronouncements by the punditry and the politicians over the past year that health care reform was "dead" should indicate the potential credibility of similar claims for cap™. Without explicitly advocating for any of the cap™ programs currently on the block, I believe I can firmly agree with Mr. Stavins—cap-and-trade is not dead. It is curious, therefore, that Sen. Graham pronounced it so when his own bill contains a distinct, if marginal, cap™ program.

Indeed, other carbon trading programs are budding and flourishing elsewhere. In California, the emissions reduction law AB 32 contains a cap™ and is set to be phased in over the next several years. Efforts to repeal this landmark legislation are not seeing a great deal of success.

California is also, as of 2007, a member of the 11-member Western Climate Initiative, a regional carbon cap scheme that will regulate 90% of emissions by 2015.

Finally, the northeastern Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cover 10 states and proposes using a cap™ program to reduce utility emissions 10% by 2018.

So advocates of cap™ should have plenty to be happy about, in theory. But their battle is not yet won—not by a long shot. Sen. Bernie Sanders today wrote a letter to Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman, demanding that their bill not preempt these state and regional efforts to reduce emissions, a fate that could very well result from the passage of the KGL bill. Such a move would replace economy-wide cap™ programs with a scaled-down, sector-specific version. Setting aside the inherent weakness of the landmark regional efforts (carbon offsets, low carbon prices), cap™ advocates had better cross their fingers and hope that the WCI and RGGI are around long enough to do any good whatsoever.

Update: I can certainly imagine Sen. Graham's claim that cap-and-trade is "dead" could be a purely political move (i.e., call the cap™ program in KGL something else and hope no one notices). This could actually be a fairly effective strategy.