Cap and Trade

Good news, DJ. The Senate is considering the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. WaPo reports:

The foundation of the legislation is a cap-and-trade system that would put a price on carbon by having a declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions permitted for each year between 2012 and 2050. Emission permits could be bought and sold; this would promote increasing energy efficiency with a minimum of government prescription. The bill calls for reductions in emissions of 19 percent by 2020 and 71 percent by 2050. Starting in 2012, the electric power, petroleum, natural gas and manufacturing sectors, as well as transportation fuels, would need allowances to pollute.

The bill isn't perfect. A majority of allowances would be auctioned, but initially about 40 percent would be given away, ostensibly to help industries in those sectors and others make the transition to a greener, more expensive reality. Those freebies would decline over time. Money gained from the auctions, estimated to be $3.3 trillion over the life of the bill, would be used to finance tax cuts for the poor to mitigate increases in utility bills; training and assistance for workers; deficit reduction; and advanced research on carbon capture and sequestration and other clean-energy technologies.

Bush is expected to veto. The conservative Heritage Foundation criticizes the bill:

Lieberman–Warner puts the cart before the horse by requiring significant emissions reductions before the technologies capable of achieving them in an affordable manner are available. At the same time, the science points away from a dire need to act precipitously and impose such a dramatic slowing of the American economy in such a tight timeframe. The compliance costs of Lieberman–Warner are likely to be far out of proportion to its benefits.

While I don't doubt the existence of some level of global warming, the Heritage Foundation may be correct that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Isakson and McCain want an amendment to support nuclear power.