I hate writing about political candidates, and especially presidential ones. But I’m going to do it anyway because I just finished reading Barack Obama’s newly released energy and climate plan. I’ve got to say: I’m stunned.
It’s awesome.
Among the highlights are a call for 80 percent reductions in emissions below 1990 levels by 2050, which would be accomplished by a cap and trade program. But this is the kicker: he wants 100% percent auctioning for all carbon permits. He’s the only candidate to call for this. Among other things, it would mean that polluters would have to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases. (More details here.)
But what really suprised me was that the plan includes a batch of wonkish complementary policies that read like they were cribbed from Sightline. These are things that seemed pie-in-the-sky (at least to me) just a few years ago. Now a major presidential contender is carrying the banner. To wit:
- Decoupling. Instead of making more money for cranking out the power, utlities should have a direct incentive to improve efficiency and conservation—the bottom line.
- Smart grid. Using technology to distribute power around the energy grid where it’s needed in real time can save heaps of electricity.
- Planning for growth and transportion to promote alternatives to driving—and alternatives to driving long distances.
- Reforming the federal tax code so that parking is not more profitable than alternatives. (Under current law, employers can provide $205 in tax free parking benefits, but only $105 for transit or ride-sharing.)
There’s a bunch more too, including other decent ideas like investments in R&D, low carbon fuel standards, energy efficiency standards (such as CAFE), renewable electricity portfolio standards, blah, blah, blah. It’s definitely worth taking a look. Or you can head over at Gristmill, where Dave Roberts also gets his groove on.
Sure, there’s plenty I could nitpick. Obama seems a bit too obsessed with biofuels in my judgment. But overall, the plan is remarkably spot-on and it’s chock full of smart policies that can quickly move us toward a climate friendly future.
By the way, just so everyone’s clear, I have no idea who I’m going to vote for. And this post is not an endorsement for Obama. All I’m saying is “wow!”
Alan Durning
Nice post, Eric.A nitpick . . . “polluters would have to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases”I’d amend to “polluters would have to pay for the privilege of emitting greenhouse gases.”
MichelleV.P.
Or maybe, since we’re talking about polluters here, we could amend it to “paying for the consequences of emitting greenhouse gases.”Or even, “paying for the absurd privilege of emitting greenhouse gases.”
NeonTetra
Well I don’t love cap and trade schemes for three reasons: a. the cap may be raised simply by government fiat. b. Trading emmission permits simply benefits the largest and richest corporations. A rationing system is more fair. c. This system is subject to even more than usual government interference by creating a regulated “market” (for pollution permits) wholly defined by the government. It is a good bet that the government itself, and the military, will be exempt from any cap and trade system. And that good friends of the government, such as military contractors, and influential Wall Street firms, will get preferential treatment.
Eric de Place
NeonTetra,Thanks for joining in. Couple of quick responses…a. Yes, the cap could be raised by govt fiat. But that’s really true of any policy approach to climate—any policy can be weakened or repealed. (It’s certainly true of carbon taxes.) One possible advantage of a declining cap with a robust market is that many businesses and market forces would have a vested interest in the predictability of the cap, so it might become politically more difficult to erode it.b. I don’t follow you. The idea behind trading is to find the lowest cost reductions across the economy. Rationing involves the govt picking winners and losers. Moreover, even if the permits are rationed for free, the value of the permit still gets passed on to consumers (the company will either sell the permit and receive the cash value, or it can raise consumer prices by an equal amount.) Maybe I’m misunderstanding you; if so, please clarify.c. To the extent that the cap doesn’t cover large portions of emissions (such as the gov’t or military) then the cap would indeed be weakened. But again, that’s true of any policy approach to climate, including taxes, which can be rife with loopholes. One idea is to cap emissions as far “upstream” as possible, well before the CO-2 is actually emitted by end users such as a tank or a postal jeep.
eldan
That policy document does look wonderful. It strikes me that Al Gore also says a lot of Sightline-y things, and I recall Obama saying before that he was going to consult Gore about climate change. I wonder if this is the justification of Gore’s repeatedly saying he won’t run for President because he can have a more positive influence on policy from outside the race….Anyway, I do have one concern, which is that in the past Obama’s been pretty strongly in favour of coal-to-liquids fuel technology, which to my mind tarnishes his environmental credentials quite severely:There’s no word about this in the recent policy document, but I feel like I’d need to hear him explicitly withdraw support for coal-to-liquids before I can really be impressed with him as a green candidate.I’m also pretty wary of “clean coal” technology, especially when it’s used as an excuse to increase the amount of coal being burned. We already have the technology to power the US without burning any coal, so “clean coal” seems like quite a poor deal to me, unless it’s restricted to retrofits of existing power stations as an intermediate step on the way to phasing them out.
bill.mitchellwh
I have to agree with eldan above. BO and a number of others from coal states are espousing “clean coal technology”, IGCC plants that remove carbon at the source. That carbon dioxide still has to be sequestered geologically and aside from a few remote oil extraction examples there are no demonstrable at scale technologies. Read High Country News September issue on Batelle NW research on carbon sequestration research into Columbia Basin basalt. Questions about this approach abound.
Eric de Place
eldan & bill,Good points. I quite agree that the “clean coal” issue is very worrisome. Obama did not include it in his energy and climate change plan though, so I’ll take that as a good sign.
charliew
I can’t help wondering if Obama’s ideas about clean coal and biofuels have anything to do with his home state: Illinois and surrounding states are corn-and-soy producers, and have significant (if dirty) coal resources.