A few months ago when some scientists, notably Jim Hansen, and less notably myself, were expressing doubts about cap-and-trade, the more politically active of our acquaintance were urging us to STFU, since we are presumed totally unrealistic about how Washington works. Notably it was David Roberts (in combination with the impenetrability of the bill’s language) that convinced me to drop the matter. [more]
Gar Lipow argues, and convincingly so, in a current article on Grist, that Waxman-Markey’s cap and trade provisions are counterproductive.
I am still deferring to Mr. Gore and to Mr. Krugman, not to mention to David Roberts who seems to be wavering. So I am relectuant to argue against this bill. [more]
Adam Siegel is trying to plow through the details of Waxman-Markey so there is one more reason for me not to.
I am trying to get a grip on the whole business and hope to have something to say after the dust settles. For the present, I am in favor of anything other than going to Copenhagen empty-handed and am somewhat reassured by Krugman’s acquiescence. [more]
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]
