Climate but not Carbon Price in Obama's Second Inaguration Speech

Quoted from Pres. Obama's Second Inaguration Speech: "We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries - we must claim its promise. That's how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure - our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That's what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared." Are these the words of a "climate hawk" as Joe Romm would say? Only if they are backed up by actions, the first of which is the Keystone Pipeline. I presume Obama would wait until John Kerry is confirmed, then let John Kerry take the heat from denying the pipeline. Everyone already knows that Kerry cares about the environment. Then Obama can preserve his cherished public stance of ambivalence on the issue. Oh wait, he mentioned climate in the inaugural speech, I forgot. I just don't see the words "carbon price" in there. We need to educate people about a carbon price, or alternatively, we need to just start charging a fee (or permit price) for carbon, and then returning the money to people, and when people receive the money, then you say, oh yeah, I don't know if you've heard about the carbon price, but here's your dividend.

Climate bill post mortem: part 1 of 1 billion

About why the Senate failed:

"We weren't able to credibly promise political reward or punishment," Bill McKibben said. "The fact is, scientists have been saying for the past few years the world might come to an end. But clearly that's insufficient motivation. Clearly, we must communicate that their careers might come to an end. That's going to take a few years."

A Grist commenter asks, "what are the limits to plain speech and passion in this landscape? I worry we're about to launch the green movement equivalent of the Adlie Stephenson and Walter Mondale campaigns."

About why the CLEAR Act (Cap and Dividend) would have been better:

Peter Barnes wrote on Grist: don't underestimate "the political value of simplicity. It's hard for politicians to vote for a controversial policy like cap and trade (however it is spun) that neither they nor anyone else can explain. Lots of Americans get that putting a price on pollution makes sense, but if you can't tell them in a few sentences how that price will be set and where the money will go, you re not going to win them or their representatives over."

"...average families don't understand the intricacies of different carbon pricing mechanisms, but they can distinguish between having their pockets picked and having them filled."

Direct cash dividends to people "allows moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for carbon pricing and not be annihilated at the polls."

Cap and Dividend is "an ambitious, workable and durable emission reducing system that already has some bipartisan traction and could conceivably get 60 votes in a more Republican Senate than we now have."

An International Climate Framework with Cap, Share & Dividend

The UN needs an equity framework to bring countries together. The best approach is Contraction & Convergence, which sets a future date to converge to global per capita equity in GHG emissions. It can be implemented with Cap & Share www.capandshare.org, where people in 1st World countries must buy the 3rd World's extra permits. This money flow will help the 3rd World leapfrog dirty coal and finance sustainable development. In the meantime, the US should implement its own domestic program that caps total emissions and returns the proceeds from an escalating carbon price back to the people: Cap & Dividend. Please ask your Senator to support the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act www.supportclearact.com.

Why Graham's Tantrum might be Good for the Climate

The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman (KGL) climate bill, a mythical bill that no one has even seen but everyone keeps talking about, sort of like a unicorn, may not ever come to exist after Graham suddenly got furious when he found out that immigration might come before climate on the Senate's docket over the weekend.

KGL has changed many times depending on the polls and the business lobbies that its three sponsors met with over the last, what, 6 months, longer? Each change has resulted in more giveaways to coal, nuclear, and offshore oil drilling. I don't recall ever hearing about a change where they said, now that we've met with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we are strengthening the emission reduction targets, returning even more permit auction revenues back to consumers, and investing even more into new cleaner technologies. But maybe I missed it.

So KGL, RIP. It played a key role in delaying real action on climate for at least 6 critical months, and distracted the Beltway Green Groups from motivating their members, mounting protests and blockades and putting real pressure on lip-service Senators. Now that the Dems 1 year opportunity is passing us by, KGL's delaying tactic was brilliant. Graham may be rewarded by Mitch McConnell for taking one for the team by faking partnership.

Or I could be wrong. All the liberal press keeps saying, Oh, Lindsey Graham was acting in good faith and it was Harry Reid who torpedoed this. How do we know this bail out wasn't planned all along, and this immigration thing isn't just a convenient excuse now that it's getting down to the wire and Graham would have had to finally put his name down on paper.

Anyway, adios KGL, hello CLEAR. The Cantwell-Collins climate bill has been around since December, but in all the anticipation for KGL, remained a runner up...until now. Now it is the last one standing. It is bipartisan. It reduces emissions, gives most of the permit auction revenues back to consumers, invests the rest in clean technologies, and lacks the freebies to coal, oil, and nuclear. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, it actually exists!

I'm not sure if actual existence is a pre-requisite for the media to take something seriously, or for Senators to start considering supporting something, but maybe it should be.

CNNMoney.com covers Dividends and Elinor Ostrom on the Commons

Good job CNNMoney.com for totally being on it.
The article "Fight global warming, get $1,100 a year" covers Maria Cantwell's CLEAR Act. A bit too much air time to the traders who are like, "But I want the money." But otherwise, it's the best article they've ever done.
Here's the link:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/23/news/economy/cap_and_dividend/

Plus it includes a great interview with Elinor Ostrom, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics. Hooray for Elinor! She's great.