Comments on: We Are the World http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/30/we-are-the-world/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: marcos http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/30/we-are-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-9731 marcos Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:16:39 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=3121#comment-9731 Interestingly familiar accountability gap in NYC with the straphangers. What to do when activists dominate a sphere of policy and become increasingly ineffective over time? -marc Interestingly familiar accountability gap in NYC with the straphangers.

What to do when activists dominate a sphere of policy and become increasingly ineffective over time?

-marc

]]> By: Charles Siegel http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/30/we-are-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-9681 Charles Siegel Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:40:48 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=3121#comment-9681 The key point to remember about Waxman-Markey is that we won't have another chance to stop the worst effects of global warming. Scientists agree that world CO2 emissions must peak by 2015 to keep temperature increases below 2 degrees C. If Waxman-Markey passes, it is possible that negotiators in Copenhagen will come up with a treaty that makes this possible. If Waxman-Markey fails, there will be years of delay before the world acts, and it will be impossible for emissions to peak as early as 2015. When moveon.org complains about Waxman-Markey "repealing part of the clean air act," they show that they are unclear on the concept of cap and trade. The whole point of cap and trade is that fossil fuels are so central to the economy that it is not economically feasible to phase them out using direct regulation under the clean air act. Instead, we need cap and trade to create a mechanism that lets the cheapest emission reductions occur first. It is perfectly appropriate for Waxman-Markey to say that cap and trade will substitute for the clean air act to control ghg emissions. Moveon.org might want to work to strengthen Waxman-Markey by increasing the short-term goal for CO2 reductions, which was weakened from 20% to 17% by 2020. It would make sense to try to get that back up to 20% or more. But their complaints about repealing the clean air act are a recipe for political failure, based on lack of understanding of the purpose of cap and trade. The key point to remember about Waxman-Markey is that we won’t have another chance to stop the worst effects of global warming. Scientists agree that world CO2 emissions must peak by 2015 to keep temperature increases below 2 degrees C. If Waxman-Markey passes, it is possible that negotiators in Copenhagen will come up with a treaty that makes this possible. If Waxman-Markey fails, there will be years of delay before the world acts, and it will be impossible for emissions to peak as early as 2015.

When moveon.org complains about Waxman-Markey “repealing part of the clean air act,” they show that they are unclear on the concept of cap and trade. The whole point of cap and trade is that fossil fuels are so central to the economy that it is not economically feasible to phase them out using direct regulation under the clean air act. Instead, we need cap and trade to create a mechanism that lets the cheapest emission reductions occur first. It is perfectly appropriate for Waxman-Markey to say that cap and trade will substitute for the clean air act to control ghg emissions.

Moveon.org might want to work to strengthen Waxman-Markey by increasing the short-term goal for CO2 reductions, which was weakened from 20% to 17% by 2020. It would make sense to try to get that back up to 20% or more.

But their complaints about repealing the clean air act are a recipe for political failure, based on lack of understanding of the purpose of cap and trade.

]]>