U.S. PIRG: 100% Auction For All Cap and Trade 2

Posted by Brad Johnson Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:41:00 GMT

U.S. PIRG today announced the release of “Cleaner, Cheaper, Smarter”, a report which makes the case that any greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program have a full auction of emissions credits.

In a supporting statement, numerous environmental and progressive organizations and individuals state:
It is critical that any cap-and-trade program require the auctioning of pollution allowances, rather than giving those allowances away for free to polluters.

By auctioning pollution allowances, we affirm that no one has a “right” to pollute. Instead, we claim the atmosphere as a common resource, to be managed for the benefit of the public, which no polluter may foul without due compensation.

By auctioning pollution allowances, we reduce the societal cost of achieving emission reductions, enabling America to achieve its climate protection goals with less disruption to our economy and the lives of individual Americans.

And by auctioning pollution allowances, we prevent the accumulation of billions of dollars in windfall profits by polluters, and instead put those revenues to work on behalf of the public. Allowance revenues can support efforts to transform America into a clean energy economy and to provide a regular dividend or rebate to American consumers.

We call on state and federal lawmakers to limit global warming emissions to the levels demanded by the science and to auction all pollution allowances in any cap-and-trade program.

The list of signatories is after the jump.

  • Sierra Club
  • Consumer Federation of America
  • Oxfam America
  • Campaign for America’s Future
  • U.S.PIRG: Federation of State PIRGs
  • MoveOn.org
  • Clean Water Action
  • Environmental Law & Policy Center
  • Rainforest Action Network
  • Friends of the Earth
  • OMB Watch
  • Greenpeace
  • Institute for Local Self-Reliance
  • The Regeneration Project / Interfaith Power & Light
  • Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
  • Public Citizen
  • Step It Up 2007
  • Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
  • Conservation Law Foundation
  • Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies
  • Center for Tax and Budget Accountability
  • Clean Air Watch
  • Clean Power Campaign
  • Community Environmental Council
  • E3 Network: Economics for Equity and the Environment
  • EcoEquity
  • Focus the Nation
  • Fresh Energy
  • Climate Solutions
  • Friends Committee on National Legislation
  • Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin
  • Massachusetts Climate Action Network
  • Ohio Environmental Council
  • Planning and Conservation League
  • SUN DAY Campaign
  • Plains Justice
  • Valley Watch
  • Center for a New American Dream
  • Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation
  • HKH Foundation
  • Climate Protection Campaign
  • Blanket the Globe
  • and local PIRG affiliates
INDIVIDUALS (affiliation for identification purposes only)
  • Robert Reich
  • James K. Boyce
  • George Lakoff
  • James Gustave Speth
  • William E. Spriggs, Ph.D.
  • Billy Parish
  • Martha Phillips
  • Peter Barnes
  • Allen L. White
  • Juliet Schor
  • Joe Nation
  • William R. Freudenburg
  • Pran R. Young
  • Dave Olsen
  • Jonathan Isham
  • Sara J. Weinheimer
  • Garrett Greuner
  • Dean Baker
  • Jonathan F P Rose
  • Robert Perkowitz,
  • William Bates
  • Joshua Skov, MA, LEED AP
  • Burns H Weston
  • Gary Flomenhoft
  • David Sassoon
  • Edward Skloot
  • Robin Hahnel, PhD
  • Peter Dorman
  • Juliette Anthony
  • Rafael Aguilera
  • Jonathan Isham
  • Tracy Bach
  • Rick Reed
  • Ildiko Polony
  • Lori A. Ehrlich

Lieberman Open To 100% Auction

Posted by Brad Johnson Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:15:00 GMT

From the Politico, at today’s PPI forum Joe Lieberman said he and John Warner are open to changing their bill from a proposed 76% give-away of pollution credits to 100% auction, following the polluter pays principle:
We’ve heard [calls for a 100 percent auction] from some stakeholders and heard that from some of our members. We’re thinking about it. Warner and I haven’t closed our minds to that. It’s on the table.

Boucher vs ED on cap-and-trade auctions 4

Posted by Brad Johnson Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:46:00 GMT

From E&E News (subscription required), at an event in Washington hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), chair of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee of John Dingell’s Energy and Commerce Committee, said he planned to draft a cap-and-trade bill that distributes tens of billions in pollution credits to U.S. industries for free:

I’m disinclined at the moment to do auctioning, at least in the early years to give it very much prominence, if any at all. The best we can do is give the allowances to the emitters according to their needs. We’re going to have enough problems as it is with coal-fired utilities, for example, and other carbon-intensive industries meeting our production schedules. I think perhaps, at least for the early years, it’s better not to compound these problems by imposing a cost on these emitters of having to go out and pay for these allowances. It will be the least painful, most politically attractive way to do it.

In other comments, Boucher asked Pelosi to delay the conference committee negotiations on the energy bill until he produced his draft cap-and-trade bill, but he said she probably won’t. He agrees with the 80% by 2050 target but is unsure of the path to there: “The schedule that takes us to that very aggressive target will be perhaps the most difficult thing we have to negotiate.” He will be releasing a series of position papers over the coming weeks.

In contrast, Nat Keohane, Ph.D., the Director of Economic Policy and Analysis at Environmental Defense offers support for full auctions in a blog post countering Greg Mankiw’s recent NYT op-ed favoring a carbon tax over a cap-and-trade system (in line with Robert Shapiro’s argument):
Mankiw assumes that allowances in a cap-and-trade system would be handed out for free rather than auctioned, thus generating no federal revenue. Now, I admit that this has been the modus operandi in the past. Virtually all allowances were handed out for free under the wildly successful sulfur dioxide trading program in the U.S., set up by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. But that doesn’t mean it has to be that way.

The alternative, full auctioning, would raise exactly the same amount of money as a carbon tax, and there are signs that it’s gaining ground. Earlier this year, several states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, including New York and New Jersey, announced plans to auction off 100 percent of their allowances. Plus there are calls to phase in auctioning in the European Union’s Emissions Trading System.

Cap-and-Trade 101: Using Markets to Fight Climate Change

Posted by Brad Johnson Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:30:00 GMT

  • Sen. Thomas R. Carper, D-Del.
  • Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn.

Contact: Marni Goldberg at 202-546-0007 or mgoldberg@dlc.org

Yorktown Room, Hyatt Regency Hotel, 400 New Jersey Ave. N.W.

Carbon Markets USA 1

Posted by Brad Johnson Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:00:00 GMT

San Francisco, 11-12 September 2007

As the GHG market transitions from voluntary trading to compliance with state (and surely soon federal) requirements, projections are that the annual global volumes of GHG credits will increase from $21.6m (2006) to reach $60 billion and may eventually top $1 trillion.

This unique meeting will bring together the leading US and International experts together for two days of intense, information rich presentations, debates and networking. Understand how one of the World’s largest future commodity markets will develop and impact upon your business.

  • Commissioner Jeffrey Byron, California Energy Commission
  • Terry Tamminen, Energy & Environmental Advisor to Governor Schwarzenegger
  • Allen Alley, Deputy Chief of Staff, Governor’s Office, State of Oregon
  • Richard Saines, Partner, Baker & McKenzie, USA
  • Veronique Bugnion, Managing Director, Point Carbon, USA
  • David N. Reschke, Noble Carbon Credits, Canada
  • Ian Carter, Policy Coordinator, North America, International Emissions Trading Association IETA, Canada
  • Thomas D. Peterson, Executive Director, The Center for Climate Strategies, USA
  • Angus Duncan, Oregon Carbon Allocation Task Force, USA
  • Doug Scott, Chair, Illinois Climate Change Advisory Group, USA
  • Josh Bushinsky, Western Policy Coordinator, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, USA
  • Gia Schneider, Vice President, Credit Suisse, USA
  • Imtiaz Ahmad, VP, Morgan Stanley, UK
  • Blake Schaefer, Director, Global Environmental Finance, Stark Investments
  • Roger Williams, VP – Portfolio Development, Blue Source
  • Marc Stuart, Co-founder, Director of New Business Development, EcoSecurities
  • Barbara McKee, Director CSLF, Chair IEA Working Party on Fossil Fuels & Director of Clean Energy Collaboration, DOE, USA
  • George Peridas, Science Fellow, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council
  • Arthur Lee, CSLF Stakeholder; Principal Advisor, Global Policy & Strategy, Chevron, U.S.A
  • Len Eddy, Managing Director, Agcert International, Canada
  • David B. Layzell, President and CEO, BIOCAP Canada Foundation, Canada
  • Richard A. Birdsey, Program Manager, Global Change Research, USDA Forest Service
  • Doug Wikizer, Chief Environmental Protection and Regulations, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, USA
  • Lisa Jacobson, Executive Director, Business Council for Sustainable Energy, USA
  • Nathan Clark, Director, Offset Projects/Economist, Chicago Climate Exchange, USA
  • Ricardo Bayon, Director, The Ecosystem Marketplace
  • Cameron Brooks, VP – Resource Development, Renewable Choice Energy
  • Mike Bess, General Manager North America, Europe and Africa, Camco International, UK
  • Meg Gottstein, Administrative Law Judge, California Public Utilities Commission
  • Ned Helme, President, CCAP, Center for Clean Air Policy, USA
  • Frank T. Princiotta, Director of the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA

Lieberman-Warner Plan Unveiled 21

Posted by Brad Johnson Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:39:00 GMT

Sens. Lieberman and Warner have unveiled the skeleton of their cap-and-trade legislation, America’s Climate Security Act.


“The bill will specify an annual aggregate tonnage cap, expressed in terms of Co2 equivalence, for each year from 2012 through 2050. The cap that the bill will specify for 2012 will be the 2005 emissions level.” And: 10% below 2005 by 2020, 30% by 2030, 50% by 2030, 70% by 2050.


  • Each year 20% of that year’s National Emission Allowance Account for free to covered entities within the industry sector.
  • In 2012 20% of the NEAA will be allocated to the electric power sector. A portion of that 20% will be free to new entrants to the electric power sector. The allocation will be at 20% from 2012 – 2017, then transition to 0% by 2035.
  • 10% will be allocated to load-serving entities to defray energy-cost impacts on low- and middle-income consumers and to promote demand-side energy efficency, some of it for free to rural electric cooperative facilities.
  • 8% will be allocated to covered entities who have taken pre-enactment action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That 8% will transition to 0% by 2020.
  • Each year 4% will be allocated to state governments, half based on population, half on historical state emissions.
  • Each year 4% will be allocated to US coal mines.
  • Each year 7.5% will be allocated to farmers, foresters, and other landowners to store carbon in soils, crops, and forests.
  • Each year 2.5% will be allocated to the transportation sector.

Allowances for Auction

  • 24% in 2012 will go to auction under the aegis of the Climate Change Credit Corporation; rising to 52% by 2035.

Auction Proceeds

  • 20% for a public-private partnership for power-sector technologies including CCS
  • 20% for public-private partnership for CCS
  • 20% for transportation sector technologies and reducing miles traveled
  • 10% for environmental mitigation
  • 10% for SO2, NOx, mercury emission reduction from coal plants
  • 10% to state and local for low-income community mitigation
  • 10% for international mitigation


CCS regulations and a legal framework for the Federal assumption of liability for geological storage will be proposed by a study group within two years of enactment.

Carbon Market Efficiency Board, Banking

  • Up to 15% of the allowances a covered entity must submit may be comprised of borrowed allowances, with an interest rate set by the Board.
  • Up to 15% of the allowances that a covered entity must submit may be comprised of offset credits.
  • Up to 15% of the allowances that a covered entity must submit may be comprised of allowances purchased on a certified foreign greenhouse gas emissions trading market.
  • the Board may increase the number of emissions credits if the average daily closing price of an emissions credit exceeds the upper end of the range predicted by the CBO prior to the start of the program.
  • The Board may adjust the terms and interest rates of the emissions loans “as needed to avoid significant harm to the economy” and “in the event of more extreme economic circumstances” to raise the cap temporarily provided that subsequent year’s caps are tightened so that cumulative reductions are unchanged.


“The bill will set forth detailed, rigorous requirements for offsets, with the purpose of ensuring that they will represent real, additional, verifiable, and permanent emissions reductions.”

Foreign Tariffs

The President will be authorized to require that importers of GHG-intensive products submit emissions allowances of a value equivalent to that of the allowances that the US system effectively requires of domestic manufacturers, if it is determined that nation has not taken commensurate action to reduce GHG emissions.

Lieberman-Warner Draft Bill Press Conference

Posted by Brad Johnson Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:30:00 GMT

At 10:30 am on Thursday, August 2, in the hearing room of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Dirksen 406), Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), the Chairman and Ranking Republican, respectively, of the Senate Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection, will unveil the particulars of the agreement that they have reached on economy-wide climate legislation. This agreement synthesizes ideas contained in other climate change proposals while also incorporating new thinking. It will form the basis of a bill that the two Senators will introduce when the Senate reconvenes in September.

Lieberman and Warner to unveil cap and trade plan tomorrow

Posted by Brad Johnson Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:18:00 GMT

The press conference has been announced for 10:30 AM tomorrow.

Carbon Market Efficiency Board

Posted by Brad Johnson Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:14:00 GMT

Last week, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) presented the Containing and Managing Climate Change Costs Efficiently Act (S. 1874), a piece of legislation authored by Joe Lieberman’s former environmental advisor, Timothy Profeta, who now heads the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University.

The proposal would establish the Carbon Market Efficiency Board which would oversee the emissions trading market established by cap-and-trade legislation. The board would operate much like the Federal Reserve Board, providing information on price and low-emission technology investment trends to Congress and the public, and it would adjust the price of emissions permits when a “market correction” is needed. The first measure is to expand companies’ ability to “bank” permits, or borrow permits against future year reductions. The second measure, to be used if high prices are not relieved by the first measure, is to add a slightly larger number of permits to the market. This temporary increase would be compensated for by reducing available permits in a later year, when more options have been developed.

Profeta testified about the proposal in last week’s hearing. His white paper goes into further detail.

The bill is intended to be folded into the Lieberman-Warner package to be presented as a discussion draft at the end of the week.

John Warner (R-Va.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) are cosponsoring the bill, in a bipartisan show of strength by pro-business Senators. [The League of Conservation Voters/Chamber of Commerce scores for the senators are: Warner 14%/100%, Graham 29%/92%, Landrieu 43%/75%, Lincoln 43%/67%. By way of comparison, Lieberman is 71%/44%.]

Responses to the proposal:

Economic and international issues, focusing on global warming policy 1

Posted by Brad Johnson Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:30:00 GMT

From CQ Green Sheets: Senate Environment Presses Ahead on Federal, State Climate Action

Summary: Lieberman & Warner are working on carbon cap-and-trade legislation. Their staff is working hard right now to get the legislation written before the August recess, but they might not make that target. The witnesses at this hearing give a hint as to what the legislation will look like.


  • Timothy Profeta, Director, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, former Lieberman staffer and the principal author of the 2003 Lieberman-McCain cap-and-trade legislation
  • Blythe S. Masters, Managing Director, JP Morgan Securities, Inc., supporter of carbon trading
  • Robert Baugh, Executive Director, Industrial Union Council, AFL-CIO, supports Bingman-like (S 1766) elements like “safety valve” emission cost caps and money for carbon sequestration
  • Garth Edward, Trading Manager, Shell International Trading and Shipping Company, supporter of carbon trading
  • Margo Thorning Ph.D., Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation, believes cap-and-trade evil and the European experience a failure

2:33 PM Lieberman Our staffs have been reaching out to all stakeholders. Two questions people ask are 1) what do we do if there’s an economic emergency? 2) This is a global problem. Yes, let’s say that America is going to take a leadership role, but unless China and India also do so, our hard work will have little overall effect. So how do we deal with that?

This morning Warner introduced an emergency off-ramp provision they hope to be included in any cap-and-trade legislation. I think it has the flexibility to deal with a genuine economic crisis.

Earlier this month Bingaman and Specter introduced a bill with interesting and thoughtful provisions. The most interesting addresses the second question.

There was a report published by the EPA today, an economic analysis of the Lieberman-McCain bill. I congratulate the EPA on a first-rate piece of work.

2:41 PM Warner This is an extraordinary challenge.

2:43 PM Lieberman There’s no chance of victory unless you lay a beachhead.

2:43 PM Boxer I am so pleased at the leadership you’re both showing. You’re on a great mission. I want to thank the private sector for being so far out ahead of us on many ways. We’re going to go to Greenland if we don’t have to be here this weekend. I hope that type of a trip is going to put more wind behind our sails. I understand Sen. Warner is working on an innovative program for borrowing emissions permits. Stern indicated the cost of failing to act greatly outweighs the cost of action. We hope you will look at Sanders-Boxer. Certainly the borrowing of emissions permits. We can allow facilities to bank their emissions. In terms of international emissions we need to make sure other countries do their part.

All in all I couldn’t be more pleased with the progress we’re making. I stand ready to work with everyone as the chair.

2:49 Inhofe This is our 16th hearing on global warming. I’m pleased that you’re having this hearing. This is the first in which we’re dealing with substantive issues. It seems clear to me that cap-and-trade doesn’t work, that Kyoto is a beacon of what not to do. I just don’t think it has been working. The body has now passed two resolutions on global warming: Byrd-Hagel said we would not want to ratify any treaty that would inflict serious economic damage on our country. Not one of the bills will avoid this; maybe the one you’re working on. According to the MIT study, the Sanders-Boxer bill would cost hundreds of dollars for a family of four, similarly with the Lieberman-McCain bill. Half a trillion dollars by 2030, using lowball assumptions. It does nothing to encourage reductions from the number one emitter, China. Even the Bingaman bill would export millions of jobs, mostly to China. It’s bad enough we have job flight to China, now we’d be exporting jobs and emitting more over there.

I’ve said if we’re going to do this, let’s be honest about it and have a carbon tax. I don’t want a tax, but given the choice I would take the more honest approach.

Even if there is a man-made problem, shouldn’t any approach do something about China?

2:56 Sanders It is also important to understand what happens if we do not go forward aggressively. The WHO tells us today already 1 million people have died. The CIA are now examining the implications of drought and hunger. I am optimistic we do know how to address this crisis. I think we can create millions of high-paying jobs. If we move forward in terms of energy efficiency we can reduce house energy costs by 40%. Right now in terms of job creation. More often than not we are importing our photovoltaics even though we developed the technology.

I cannot support a safety valve. It is a white flag.

3:00 Craig If this is a beachhead, I am here to stop the landmines.

3:01 Warner The chairman and I have decided to forge this partnership. We’re going to put out a study document instead of a bill before we leave for August, so that we may receive the benefit of your comments.’

Lieberman Yes, essentially a draft proposal, give people a chance to say what they like and do not like. And then we’ll offer a bill to the subcommittee as quickly as possible in September.

Boxer Thank you for your timetable. Assuming we do make this timeframe, our plan would be to look at all of the economy-wide proposals when we get back and look to you as the base of documents, I’m trusting to get the best of the ideas from the previous proposals.

3:04 Lieberman This is a global problem and we want to come up with a national response.

3:06 Profeta The issues you seek to address today are the ones the Senate set as sticking points: cost containment and international competitiveness.

The problem of global warming is intertwined with every action in our life. Fortunately several members in the committee have committed to action. Cap-and-trade system is the best cost containment. Any proposal should maintain the environmental integrity of the program. It should maximize the use of market-based mechanisms, and be long term. Our proposal involves a board with the power to modify emissions allowances to adjust the economic impact. This proposal does not claim to know the unknowable, what the price of carbon will need to be. This plan cleanly addresses the uncertainty.

We still need to ensure comparable action by trading partners. We talked with major corporations and trade disparity came screaming out at us. Our efforts focused on article 20 of the GATT. In general, first the US engages in a good faith effort, applied evenhandedly to domestic and foreign products. Our assessment of the Bingaman-Specter language is that it is consistent with our effort.

3:16 Masters We established a group to help our clients reduce carbon emissions. J.P. Morgan is an international company. We recognize global warming represents grave risks to the international economy. Congress is studying whether to start a cap-and-trade framework. J.P. Morgan supports such a framework. GHG emissions (“carbon”) must have a price. There are precedents for this. It’s my understanding, Sen. Warner, you played a major role in the acid rain cap-and-trade system, which worked and below cost.

The US is understandably tooking to contain compliance costs. Having said that, there are multiple approaches to cost containment. Prices will tend to be lower the more supply there is. The easiest way to expand emissions supply is to increase carbon offsets. I don’t have a precise recommendation but there is an ideal balance. One of the mistakes of the Kyoto Protocol is to prohibit the preservation of tropical forests.

Price controls will prevent Europe and other carbon markets from linking to the US cap-and-trade system. Neither the acid rain nor the European system use price controls. Despite not having price controls in place, neither producers nor consumers in the European system have suffered.

3:28 Baugh On behalf of the 10 million members of the AFL-CIO I thank you. Climate change is a major problem. Our energy task force has been informed by science and economic reality. We endorsed Bingaman-Specter. One: it made a significant statement about the environment. It has a timetable that balances environment with economy. It ensures a modest effect on prices. One of its most important aspects is its commitment to technology investment. The point of the allowances is to ensure a positive change.

3:42 Edward Shell was the first business to transact in these systems. Shell believes a cap-and-trade system is ideally suited for energy production. It is not ideally suited for transportation. I’ll talk about what cap-and-trade allows us to do.

An emissions market drives the most efficient way to reduce emissions. It does function as a cost containment mechanism by itself. The wider the pool of reduction opportunities, the less exposed the overall market is to short term impacts. Other ways to constrain costs are through offsets. Shell believes carbon sequestration will be a major future offset. Clearly there must be robust rules. Regulators, investors, and the public have a vested interest that these rules are rock-solid. The US will help its industry by making sure its system interlocks with international credit markets.

The EU has not allowed unlimited access to international credits, but the access has reduced volatility and costs. Shell believes allowances should be granted free at the beginning of any program. Auctions require upfront costs from the companies that need to spend on changes. Shell does not support price caps because they sacrifice the environmental goal at the heart of the program. A price cap compromises the emissions cap. In effect, you can have a guaranteed emissions level or a guaranteed price level, but not both. A price cap makes cap-and-trade like a tax. With the price cap, the incentive to invest in new technology is also capped.

3:51 PM Thorning Listening to the testimony of the earlier witnesses we must focus on the most cost-effective ways to achieve the goals. I’d like raise three issues: 1) energy security of supply, 2) environmental protection 3) reduction of global energy poverty. She’s giving the same testimony she did two weeks ago.

4:09 PM Lieberman Based on the international experience, how has the EU dealt with the problem? Are there “emergency off ramps”, “safety valves”?

Edward There is no safety valve per se. There is access to international markets. There is access to more supply, rather than an interventionist price cap.

Masters There was a trial run to be used for adjustments. What was terrific is that we can learn from that experience here. There was an instance of a significant price adjustment in 2006.

4:13 Warner I was a lawyer once. As we move forward what do we do to make sure these markets are not fraudulent?

Masters In arguing against a “safety valve” we are not arguing these markets should not be regulated. There is significant risk of cheating. The best way to achieve an orderly market is to ensure there are oversight mechanisms, in particular a body that establishes standards that can be independently verified. There are two markets today: compliance markets and voluntary markets. There have been some instances of fraud in voluntary carbon markets that don’t have the same standards the compliance markets do. It’s important that there is regulation, transparency, standards, and standards that are uniformly supplied.

Warner We’re looking at our federal reserve system as a model. By the way I’m guilty of the “off ramp”. Our state has a lot of mountains.

Edward These markets are not significantly different from other markets. We understand registry systems, validation of emissions, tax treatment. Basically, emissions markets will be audited the same way as financial markets.

Warner The status of CCS. Can we expedite it to build a bridge to get to another level of technology?

Profeta It’s one of the elements of a longer term strategy. The EU analysis is that there is no way that the US, with its supplies of coal, can manage the transition without CCS. A price cap would not get us to invest enough into this sector.

4:30 Profeta Its desire is to stimulate engagement with these countries, where we have liquidity across the markets.

4:31 Inhofe I walked in at a time I have not heard discussed before. You cannot tell people who are struggling to have enough to eat to reduce their emissions. China is the beneficiary of efforts we have here. I’m surprised at the AFL-CIO’s position here. You’ve endorsed the Bingaman bill that unilaterally caps our emissions here.

Baugh We agree China is not going to listen to us unless they have a reason to listen to us.

Older posts: 1 ... 6 7 8 9