Tuesday, November 4, 2008
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
ยท
In endorsing a draconian view of the intent of the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR) standard ["Dirtier Air," editorial, Oct. 28], The Post and many environmental special-interest groups are saying that no progress is better than some when it comes to reducing power-plant emissions.
Current regulation puts electricity generators between a rock and a hard place. Many of them would like to make modifications to increase operational efficiency, but the level of emissions reductions they would have to achieve would be the same as is required of newly constructed power plants.
While reducing emissions and improving efficiency are desirable goals, the levels required under the current NSR scheme are not economically feasible. It becomes easier to do nothing.
Despite the claims of many environmental groups, the NSR rule as it is now being interpreted is one of the most anti-progressive environmental regulations in existence.
JOE LUCAS
Vice President of Communications
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
Alexandria
View all comments that have been posted about this article.