Cap-and-Trade: The Temple of Enron (James Hansen makes an important political point)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- May 14, 2009

“Since 1976, Enron [and predecessor company] employees have been at the forefront of developing air credit trading policies for governments and businesses…. Enron today is the largest and most sophisticated air emissions credit and allowance trading organization in the United States. Since 1990, Enron has participated in over 80 SOx allowance transactions and has also been active in establishing policies for trading NOx in the United States and carbon [dioxide] world-wide.”

– “Enron Corp.’s Participation in Air Trading,” Enron Capital & Trade Resources, November 4, 1996 (copy in files).

“If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative…. The endorsement of [CO₂] emissions trading was another victory for us…. This agreement will be good for Enron stock!”

– John Palmisano (December 12, 1997) from Kyoto, Japan.

CO2 Cap-and-Trade Meets the (China) Dragon: Why Legislating Trillions of Dollars in Regulatory Costs Would Be Climatically Inconsequential

By Donald Hertzmark -- May 13, 2009

[Editor’s Note: Projected emissions from China will more than cancel the effects of Waxman-Markey in the year 2050 when the proposed law’s 83% cut in U.S. emissions would be fully imposed. This finding, calculated with the assistance of Chip Knappenberger and the MAGICC model, is part of a wide-ranging analysis below. Discussion, comments, and questions are invited by the author.]

The Waxman-Markey climate bill–characterized as a “648 page cap-and-trade monstrosity” by Al Gore’s mentor, James Hansen–is intended to bring the U.S. into line with Europe and Japan on CO₂ policy. But as I have explained previously, the current U.S. policy discouraging new coal and new nuclear capacity will:

Make the U.S. more dependent on energy imports,
Drive up generation costs,
Artificially incite demand for fickle natural gas, and related infrastructure such as LNG regasification facilities, and
Increase reliance on old coal and old nuclear for baseload power, resulting in less efficient, less clean, and less reliable electricity.

High/Low: Is There Now Reasonable Agreement on the Costs and Benefits of Waxman-Markey?

By Robert Murphy -- May 12, 2009

Supporters of the Waxman-Markey climate bill have not seriously disputed the extreme costs and the negligible benefits estimated by critics of the cap-and-trade proposal. I must confess that I was expecting a real fight, but some very important markers seem to have been laid down in this legislative debate. Waxman-Markey supporters are going beyond the math to dispute the conclusion being drawn from the math. And that conclusion, which logically follows, is that cap-and-trade for carbon dioxide is a very bad deal.…