Don’t call it a comeback
Posted by Rich Sweeney on April 9, 2009
Couldn’t resist logging on one last time to point out the difference between good and bad climate policy journalism. First the bad, from yesterday’s WaPo. Go read it yourself then come back.
Ok, I count at least three things that are obviously wrong here:
1. Why should “environmentalists” care about allocation? The level of the cap determines the level of emissions, regardless of how the value is allocated.
2. Duke says it needs some time to install “emission controls”? Umm I’d like to know what these CO2 controlling installations are.
3. Duke says that a gradual transition to 100% auctions will allow us to cut carbon without “raising electricity costs too high”. But that slack has to be picked up elsewhere, at the cost of economic efficiency (ie higher costs).
Now contrast that with Keith Johnson’s excellent post in EC today. He explains the tradeoffs, and provides useful political and economic context.
Actually in my farewell post I forgot to acknowlege other blogs that I stole borrowed heavily from at CT. If I could only read two blogs each day they would be Environmental Econ and Environmental Capital. Anyone who gets their environmental news from the WaPo is an.. … just kidding ;)