Jeff Bingaman Perfects the Art of the Conditional Sellout
Jeff Bingaman is ready to waive the white flag on auctioning carbon permits in a cap-and-trade scheme. Kevin Drum’s got the response on policy, but it’s worth pointing to Bingaman’s phrasing:
Bingaman said any Congressionally developed system capping and trading emissions probably will include carbon allowances given to polluters like cement factories and coal-burning power plants, along with permits that are sold. [...] “I think it’s unlikely we will pass a cap-and-trade bill with 100 percent auction,” Bingaman told reporters at the Platts Energy Podium. He said such a system has the risk of substantially increasing the burden on some utilities and major emitters.
When you’re a Democratic Senator, you often face a conflict of interests. On the one hand, you would really like to sell out to anti-reform special interests. On the other hand, you can’t openly portray yourself as someone who wants to sell out. One appealing option is to do what Bingaman does here and just cite unspecified political obstacles. Not that the obstacles aren’t real. But in the U.S. Senate they’re also people, with names. But instead of naming names, Bingaman’s just offering the vagueness play. He’d love to do the right thing, but it’s “unlikely” to happen. And everyone can do this. Nobody needs to be the Senator who’s against a public plan in health care, or who’s against a 100 percent auction. Instead, everyone’s just being practical for the sake of someone else.
26 Responses to “Jeff Bingaman Perfects the Art of the Conditional Sellout”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 6th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I think its pretty clear that the obstacles are the “Gang of 16″ (or whatever) of “moderate” Ds who have formed to work on the climate bill. Their names are available at: http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/04/moderate-senate-dems-build-gang-of-16-to-influence-cap-and-trade-bill/
You could blame Bingaman or the reporter for failing to explain.
Bingaman’s staff has apparently been participating, and since he is the Energy Committee chairman, he probably should track what they are doing, but the extent to where his exact sympathies lie is unknown, which helps him to avoid accountability with the public, and also improves his negotiating position in the Senate and avoids offending people (a common Senator desire).
March 6th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
This is a variation on the classic reverse houdini.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Wow, there might actually be democratic legislative compromise on Obama’s smash and grab scheme to tax the middle classes without calling it a tax and it will be driven by voters once they get an idea of what this ObaFreeLunch will cost them.
The only real question: will Barry adjust spending to account for reduced revenue or just blindly add to the deficits?
March 6th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Bingaman’s staff has apparently been participating, and since he is the Energy Committee chairman, he probably should track what they are doing, but the extent to where his exact sympathies lie is unknown, which helps him to avoid accountability with the public, and also improves his negotiating position in the Senate and avoids offending people (a common Senator desire).
March 6th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Gee, this is exactly what that energy company owner on Maddow suggested: give coal a break.
I just wish they could call this something besides a tax. The emitted carbon is the tax, one which keeps coming back for more year after year.
March 6th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
And so the cowards murder our grandchildren.
March 6th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Was the link to Kevin Drum supposed to be:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/03/how-make-cap-and-trade-bad-joke
100% auctions seem really important…
March 6th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Carbon Tax. Better and less easily diluted into obscurity.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
It had been my understanding until the last week or so that “cap and trade” was just that, emitters were given permits that capped their current emissions forming a baseline. New industries would have to trade in a new secondary market to buy credits from companies exiting or coming up with non-emitting processes.
I’ve worked in environmental permitting for some time and have seen this type of system at work in Southern California. My understanding was “cap and trade” would work like that, except that it would be based on CO2 and be nationwide.
It wasn’t until the new budget was run out that I heard that emitters would have to buy permits for their current baseline. This was all reinforced by this article in WSJ that brings up the same point
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123630254209847245.html
Obviously WSJ has an agenda, but I have to admit I didn’t know permits would be sold and not issued till this week.
When did this change in approach come about?
March 6th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Okay, I just read the Mother Jones piece. I don’t think this is really going anywhere, especially once people understand what this will do to utility costs and the costs of manufactured goods. It would really stick it to states that have little or no potential for renewables generation.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
But I still am curious as to when the change of approach happened
March 6th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Campensino, if we had a bitch’n new electrical grid, those states wouldn’t be so stuck-to.
And I think that’s been suggested, and derided as pork.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
MY at work: WAIVE the white flag ?
I guess you could waive it and go straight to just putting your hands up
March 6th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Campesino,
there’s always been a debate about whether to go with 100% auction or grant permits to current polluters. Obama during the campaign favored the stronger 100% auction solution. Matt and Kevin are right that the only way to make cap and trade work is with 100% auction.
Also, a minor correction. Cap has always referred to a national target rather than a local plant or utility goal. The cap establishes the boundaries of the playing field that coal, oil, etc. can compete within.
Also, we use cap and trade for SO2. It works fine and is well understood by all affected industries.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Carbon capping is more complex than cap and trade. Their are plenty of options that deal with the increase in costs to consumers. One such policy idea is cap and didend. See the link.
http://capanddividend.org/
March 7th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Also, we use cap and trade for SO2. It works fine and is well understood by all affected industries.
I think that this is a little different, because SO2 is a byproduct of coal burning (and other fossil fuel burning). CO2 is the main waste product, and an unavoidable waste product.
People will be all gung-ho about using taxes and other fees to reduce fossil fuel consumption, until they realize that suddenly they are not able to drive anywhere and they can’t afford to heat their homes over 55oF.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:58 am
I guess my point is that it’s wonderful to be for renewables and to blame EEEEEEEEEVIL corporations for being polluters, but the reality is that the costs of reducing fossil fuel use are higher than most proponents want to admit.
March 7th, 2009 at 11:48 am
All CapnTrade deals suffer the same problem, even Kevin Drumm’s “full auction”.
All of them start with the same premise. the other people pay and my people don’t. At the heart of Obama’s plan is to subsidize co2 emissions for the “pay to work” crowd, or whatever crowd gets the revenue.
All the arguments start this way: “My theory says we need this revenue to do X, X is external to my theory, therefore other theories are incorrect when they subsidize someone other than X”
What ever Congress does, they will subsidize the CO2 emissions of some groups, that is Congress’s job, remember we elect them for that reason.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“wave”
March 14th, 2009 at 8:39 am
This is the first time I commented here and I must say that you give genuine, and quality information for bloggers! Great job.
p.s. You have an awesome template . Where did you find it?
March 16th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however my english not that good but i think i get the point. thanks
March 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Thank you, great read!
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:30 am
I read a post similar to this a few weeks ago, but I think this makes more sense
April 8th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
My fellow on Orkut shared this link and I’m not dissapointed that I came to your blog.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
FANTASTIC!
April 15th, 2009 at 5:43 am
The style of writing is quite familiar . Did you write guest posts for other bloggers?