It seems to me we have a chicken and egg dilemma here. The international community (especially developing countries) are weary of supporting a treaty at Copenhagen before the U.S. has proven its sincerity by passing a similar, but most importantly, legally binding, law at home. At the same time, the U.S. Congress doesn't want to be seen as bowing to international pressure by shaping our climate bill to match international requirements set at Copenhagen. What to do, what to do...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This issue is connected with my previous post. I think the international community (wrongly) thinks the only measure that counts is passing some form of a cap and trade bill. But since I'm skeptical of cap and trade actually working after it passes through the sausage maker, which includes all sorts of offsets and exceptions, I don't think we need to pass cap and trade to show we're committed. I think the amount that the stimulus funding devotes to clean energy, etc. is already a big step. But whatever.
ReplyDeleteS1733 seems like a step in the right direction. I could go for more specific minimum reductions in section 821.2, but it's definitely a start. Other countries can't be faulted for wanting to see the U.S. take a serious position on this issue before making a commitment themselves (especially given our inaction in the past). Carbon capture is a process I know little about, and at this point I find it a little dubious. In fact, if you could point me to some good info on the process I'd appreciate it.
ReplyDelete