In the News

If Congress doesn’t act, the EPA still can regulate. This week, the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law will release a report on how far the EPA could go with regulations. The answer: the agency could impose cap-and-trade.

If Congress doesn’t act, the EPA still can regulate. This week, the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law will release a report on how far the EPA could go with regulations. The answer: the agency could impose cap-and-trade.

On the second anniversary of the Supreme Court’s greenhouse gas decision, it is refreshing and exhilarating to see so much movement from Washington towards reducing our carbon emissions. After the endless stalling by the last President, our government officials are right to be rushing to find a solution now. But unless that solution keeps lower and middle class Americans whole, we fear it will be unfair, unpopular and ultimately, short-lived.

Cap and trade may not be dead, but it now looks unlikely that Congress will pursue emissions regulations this year, which no doubt frustrates Michael Livermore, who makes the case for acting quickly over at TNR’s The Vine.

Good news America: we do not have to choose between economic growth and climate stability. In his budget blueprint, President Obama has proposed a climate change policy that cleans up our environment, spurs investment that will create millions of jobs, and protects consumers from the rate increases that will come from making this transition to cleaner energy. With this plan, there is no need to wait for an economic recovery.

According to various press reports, the Obama administration and Congress may decide not to push a cap on carbon emissions through this year’s budget reconciliation process…But one thing to note here is that the longer Congress waits on putting a cap in place, the more we actually hinder the ability of our economy to prepare for an inevitable carbon-constrained future.

As a climate change policy, President Obama’s carbon cap is a winner. It gets greenhouse reductions at the lowest possible cost and spurs the innovation and invention that will drive us to a clean-energy economy. But if folks are eyeing the carbon cap as a way to raise money to pay for clean energy programs, they are barking up the wrong tree. Unless these funds are returned to the American public, the cap will have severely regressive effects on lower-income Americans. And in the end, it would come back around to bite us by sapping support for environmental spending in the future.

Obama wants to stop energy companies from eating our lunch – we shouldn’t fight him. In our backwards political climate, President Obama’s sensible carbon cap proposal has gotten him in hot water with everyone from utilities to members of the green movement. While other plans give away pollution permits to energy companies for free —a windfall valued roughly $100 billion per year—President Obama’s proposal auctions off the permits and refunds the money to taxpayers.

President Obama is right to auction off 100% of the carbon credits and he is also right to refund that revenue to American taxpayers—this is the key piece of the puzzle that will promote broad based support for climate change policy.

President Barack Obama hits three nails on the head with his plan to cap carbon emissions: weaning us off fossil fuels, spurring a wave of investment and job creation, and putting cash in the pockets of Americans who most need it.