People who have put more effort than I have into reading the Waxman-Markey bill are coming up with widely differing interpretations, not just of what its impacts will be, but of what it actually means.
One interesting case against is this analysis by Payal Parekh, who thinks the cap and trade components of the Waxman-Markey bill will do very little for American carbon emissions. [more]
It’s interesting how none of the proponents of Waxman-Markey would point to the text, but it’s not hard to find. It’s linked here and is officially called the “American Clean Energy and Security Act”.
Although it is one of those things intimidatingly described as being over 600 pages long, it was very amusing to discover that the margins and font size match what you’d expect for a nine-year-old’s primer. [more]
and neither do I, honestly. He is quoted in a news article in Science.
Geochemist Daniel Schrag of Harvard University argues that mandatory carbon caps should have been applied years ago to force energy technology innovations. He doesn’t think that it’s necessary to have, as Bush proposed, a year and a half of discussion to define emissions goals. [more]
