Making Progress on Carbon Emissions
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
The Oct. 19 editorial "Cap and Return" sounded a sober warning to America's leaders not to let fear of a pending economic downturn stem growing momentum in favor of tackling global climate change.
It also urged that "every penny" from the sale of carbon emissions allowances be returned directly to the public via tax rebates. We strongly agree that every penny should be returned to the public, but we argue that those returns should come from investment in the public good as well as from direct payments. Some of the proceeds from a cap-and-auction system -- revenue raised from polluters, not taxpayers -- should be used to rebuild our infrastructure, modernize our electrical grid, and make our homes, factories and vehicles more efficient. Investing in the new clean energy economy simultaneously addresses the nation's energy shortages, our economic crisis and global warming.
The public should see direct benefits from a cap-and-auction program to reduce global warming emissions. But those benefits can and should come in the form of public investments that cut through embedded subsidies to traditional energy industries and maximize our cheapest, cleanest, quickest and safest energy options -- as well as in cash.
DAVE HAMILTON
Director
Global Warming and Energy Programs
Sierra Club
Washington
