JONATHAN CHAIT OCTOBER 21, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Over the last few months, liberals have been mourning the death of the Obama administration's climate agenda and hurling the corpse onto a funeral pyre, while I've been frantically racing around trying to persuade them that it's not dead, like the hobbit in this scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR3Z388PIew
Here's the latest piece of evidence -- new emissions regulations on heavy trucks and buses:
The Obama administration will propose the first-ever greenhouse gas emission limits for heavy trucks and buses next week.
The proposal will call for a 20 percent reduction in heat-trapping emissions from trucks’ tailpipes, according to Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign.
Again, this may not be the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it is a way. It's also making some conservatives realize that they may not have actually won much by defeating cap and trade. National Review's Stephen Spruiell complains that "We're Getting Cap, No Trade":
It’s going to be very, very difficult for Congress or industry to get the EPA to stop doing this. I’m fairly sure that the president can veto or ignore any law or resolution aimed at curtailing the EPA’s power on this front, and we know where the Court stands. My concern is that even if the GOP takes the White House in 2012, the EPA will have set so much of this process in motion that it will be difficult or possibly pointless to undo.
He may be right. We're going to end up with more economically burdensome limits than if Congress had passed cap and trade.
In a rationale world, this would set up a deal: Republican politicians would agree to cap and trade, or a carbon tax, or something substantial, in return for the EPA suspending its carbon regulations. In reality, that probably can't happen, because many of the carbon-emitting industries are run by crazed climate science deniers, and the conservative base probably won't accept the logic of "let's let our members of Congress vote for a bill we hate to prevent regulations we hate even more."
So in lieu of a broken legislative process, cap but no trade it is. The real question is whether the Obama administration and the Democrats will fight to keep it.
4 comments
It would be nice to have a bill but due to the Republican predilection for global warming denial and to their obstructionism, regulation it has to be. And then they will scream bloody murder about the regulation.
- liberal reformer
October 21, 2010 at 9:21pm
In a rational world, a deal would be had. In a "rationale" world (as in our friend Mr_Rationale), there would obviously be no deal but lots of EPA regulation of carbon, tailpipe emissions and so on and so forth. Serves the buggerers right.
- wildboy
October 21, 2010 at 9:54pm
This will be incredibly easy. Diesel engines are actually designed to run on biofuels. The petroleum based fuels are actually worse on the engines, but cheaper in price (mostly due to U.S. petroleum subsidies) Switch-grass alone could power every single diesel truck on the road in time and should (right now there is not nearly enough "correct" biofuels like switchgrass, mostly corn ethanol that requires lots of energy to produce). Here in NYC, Con Edison's diesel trucks all run on biofuel, and most of our buses don't even need to be hybrid because they could run on biofuel alone. The solution is there for diesel engines, and it is completely painless. If anything it shores up demand for biofuels anyway, a great long-term goal for reducing dependency on Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and inefficient Canadian tar sands. Or we could rescind our ridiculous tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol and clean up our air even more for cheaper than we could produce here.
- RedState
October 22, 2010 at 11:24am
RedState: "Or we could rescind our ridiculous tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol and clean up our air even more for cheaper than we could produce here." I used to like that approach until I asked someone who knew more about the issue than I did who pointed out that increased demand for Brazilian sugar would lead to more Amazonian deforestation to create more cropland, which would lead to more carbon in the atmosphere.
- dsimon
October 22, 2010 at 9:06pm