The Wesleyan Conference: Seeking a Meaningful Price on Carbon. By Andrew Revkin, NYTimes, 12/22/10. “One month ago, Wesleyan University hosted a weekend conference called ‘Pricing Carbon.’ It was a revival meeting of sorts, bringing together about 500 economists, campaigners, scientists, students and lawmakers seeking, despite recent setbacks, to apply the age-old ‘polluter pays’ principle to carbon. A prime goal of many attendees, from carbon campaigners Charles Komanoff and Peter Barnes to James Hansen of NASA, was to explore various strategies for creating a carbon tax that American consumers could accept.

“In reviewing many of the presentations, which are nearly all archived online, it’s clear that the death of a federal cap-and-trade system for curbing emissions is seen as a potential opening by proponents of a more direct approach to making polluting energy choices costly while buffering the impact on consumers. Many presenters acknowledged the daunting political hurdles in Washington, which were most vividly described by Representative Bob Inglis, a Republican of South Carolina who was defeated in his primary race largely, he said, over his stance on global warming and the need for a carbon tax.”

'Perverse' CO2 Payments Send Flood of Money to China. By Mark Shapiro, YaleEnviro360, 12/13/10. “European legislators in Brussels have discovered that the strategy they devised to combat climate change is helping subsidize the economy of their, and America’s, major global competitor -- China. European companies have been overpaying Chinese companies more than 70 times the cost to eliminate a potent greenhouse gas -- triflouromethane, or hfc 23, a byproduct of manufacturing a refrigerant that has been banned in developed countries and is being phased out in developing ones.

“In order to offset their own greenhouse gases, companies and utilities in Europe that are subject to the emission limits of the Kyoto Protocol have been paying vastly inflated prices to Chinese companies to destroy hfc 23, and in the process have been providing the Chinese government with hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to compete against Europe’s own ‘green’ industries. European concern about this practice was a major source of contention during last week’s climate negotiations in Cancun, as the UN attempted to defend the integrity of the multi-billion dollar global carbon offset market.”

Add OPEC Profiteering to the List of Reasons to Ditch Cap-and-Trade. By James Handley, Carbon Tax Center, 12/11/10. “The drawbacks of the cap-and-trade approach for pricing and reducing carbon emissions are legion. They include complexity, volatility, lack of price predictability, vulnerability to financial speculation, and impossibility of harmonizing across borders. Now there’s another, courtesy of a 2010 report by an economist at the World Bank: ‘Institution of a cap-based emissions program by oil-importing countries works to increase oil exporters’ market power, revenue and profits;whereas a carbon tax would have the opposite effect.’ That’s the conclusion we draw from Jon Strand’s Taxes and Caps as Climate Policy Instruments with Domestic and Imported Fuels [PDF, 47 pp]. As Dr. Strand… chairs the economics department at the University of Oslo and serves as a senior economist at the World Bank since 2008… It’s worth noting that economic analysis suggests that a carbon tax would tend to work against the interests of the oil cartel, while cap-and-trade would tend to reinforce the cartel’s price-setting leverage.”

Interpol Takes on Emissions Fraud. By Mark Shapiro, MotherJones, 10/8/10. “In Lyon, France last month, undercover agents specializing in wildlife smuggling rubbed elbows with financial sleuths at a conference sponsored by INTERPOL intended to highlight the increasing complexity of environmental crimes and the tightening of environmental regulations in developing and developed countries… Global carbon markets, operating in countries subject to the emission restrictions of the Kyoto Protocol, have grown exponentially over the past five years, churning through more than $300 billion worth of transactions…

“The complexity of the carbon markets, which operate with ambiguous oversight, presents an array of new opportunities for fraud, noted Peter Younger, a veteran with Interpol and now in charge of the agency's enforcement of wildlife and forest protection in Africa. ‘You're talking about an international financial trade mechanism and the question is still evolving, where does the liability lie? We're still filling in our knowledge gap.’ The carbon commodities being traded, he said, are unlike any others: ‘You're obtaining not a physical entity or asset but a piece of paper.’ Take the rapid growth of interest in tropical forests serving as ‘offsets’ to companies' carbon emissions. In countries where land ownership is often disputed, the possibility for fraud is considerable, he said."

Amidst Growing Signs of Climate Change, Prospects for Climate Legislation Unlikely Before 2013. By Juliet Eilperin, WashPost, September 24, 2010. "For all the visible signs of global warming, weakened political support for curbing emissions means the United States is unlikely to impose national limits on greenhouse gases before 2013, at the earliest. Several leading GOP candidates this fall are questioning whether these emissions even cause warming, while some key Democratic Senate candidates are disavowing the cap-and-trade bill the House passed in 2009. 'I don't see a comprehensive bill going anywhere in the next two years,' Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told a Washington policymakers conference sponsored by Reuters on Tuesday [9/21/10]. This disconnect has left environmentalists and many climate scientists pessimistic… Even some Democratic Senate candidates are playing down the prospect of a federal cap on carbon emissions. Bennet, during a debate with Buck this month, said he opposes the House-passed climate bill, and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal -- who backed Senate climate legislation in 2009 - recently told one voter that 'cap-and-trade is dead.'"

Cap-and-Trade Coalition Changes Focus From Climate Bill To EPA Authority. By Anne C. Mulkern, Greenwire, September 13, 2010. "A coalition thwarted in its effort to secure climate legislation will launch a campaign this week aimed at protecting what it sees as a last line of defense: U.S. EPA's ability to regulate carbon pollution. The coalition's thrust on EPA also happens as the alliance decides how it will approach the climate issue moving forward. Members of Clean Energy Works are talking about whether the group will exist in its current form or significantly retool now that it appears unlikely this Congress will act on climate or energy legislation. It is also searching for new strategies, which could include a greater emphasis at the state level. The group insists that it's not disappearing. Politico last week reported that the group planned to shut down. 'There's no question that there will be another version of this going forward,' said Maggie Fox, CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the group founded by Vice President Al Gore. 'It's less about an ending and more about a semicolon. All we're going to be doing is trying to do it better.'"

U.N. Board Could Rein in $2.7 Billion Carbon Market. By John Heilprin, AP, August 20, 2010. "An obscure U.N. board that oversees a $2.7 billion market intended to cut heat-trapping gases has agreed to take steps that could lead to it eventually reining in what European and U.S. environmentalists are calling a huge scam. At a meeting that ended on August 20, the executive board of the U.N.'s Clean Development Mechanism said that five chemical plants in China would no longer qualify for funding as so-called carbon offset credits until the environmentalists' claims can be further investigated. The 'CDM' credits have been widely used in the carbon trading markets of the European Union, Japan and other nations that signed onto the 1997 Kyoto Protocol requiring mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases. Rather than cut their own carbon emissions, industrialized nations can buy the credits which then pay developing countries to cut their greenhouse gases instead. But environmentalists say rich nations could be wasting billions of dollars on what some are calling 'perverse financial incentives,' because some of the largest projects funded by the U.N.-managed CDM are a golden goose for chemical makers without making meaningful cuts in emissions."

Cap-and-Trade Encourages Production of HFC-23. By James Kanter, NYTimes, August 30, 2010. "Opponents of offsetting have likened the system to the kind of financial engineering on Wall Street that helped precipitate the recent banking crisis. They say the offsetting encouraged by the Kyoto Protocol encourages profiteering, with little or no value in efforts to curb climate change... The controversy over offsetting is the latest blow to emissions trading, which has been racked by a spate of problems in Europe including cyberattacks, tax fraud and recycling of used credits... HFC-23... a byproduct from making refrigerants has several thousand times the potential of CO2 to trap heat in Earth's atmosphere.... has become a lucrative business, and over the past five years, financiers and industrial companies have begun turning those streams of waste into hefty returns... HFC-23 credits also make up about half the supply of international offsets approved by the United Nations to date... CDM-Watch, which is based in Brussels, raised allegations with the United Nations' climate office that some plants were producing more refrigerant than they needed to meet market demand to cash in on credits for HFC-23. CDM Watch also contended that some plants were failing to improve their processes to avoid unnecessary production of HFC-23."

Midterm Advice for Congress: Tax Carbon Instead of Jobs. Commentary By Robert J. Shapiro and Elaine Kamarck, HuffPost, August 17, 2010. "It is now abundantly clear that the unemployment rate will largely determine the fate of the Democrats and their policies this fall and beyond. Public concerns over jobs and the economy overshadow everything else, to the point that just two years after the historic 2008 election, much of the administration's agenda could be in jeopardy... Democrats headed home for the mid-term elections need a new plan that will give voters powerful reasons to get to the polls and vote for them. We have one. Call it Plan B. It creates jobs, stimulates the economy, and addresses energy and climate concerns at the same time. Here's how it goes...

"First, in order to stimulate job creation under our current conditions, Congress and the President need to make it cheaper for American companies to hire new people. The most direct and effective way to do that is to sharply cut the employer's share of payroll taxes for new, net hires. That would cover all new employees in firms that expand their total workforce and their total payrolls. In the second year, the tax break would cover a smaller share of the employer's payroll tax contribution. If the economy recovers nicely and job creation returns to healthy levels, the break can be phased out. Workers who have worked hard for those two years will know how to do their jobs well, which will be enough for their companies to keep them on without the payroll tax break... Second, we need to stimulate demand so that companies feel secure enough to take on new workers. We can do that by cutting the employee's share of payroll taxes permanently, so that everyone has more money to spend for the foreseeable future.

"The large and obvious problem with this plan is the impact of lower payroll taxes on the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, which can't spare a dime. So, the third part of the plan would keep those funds whole by putting a new fee on carbon big enough to make up the revenues lost by the payroll-tax cuts. In order to get the necessary economic stimulus from the payroll tax cuts, the economy-wide carbon fee should kick in one year after the payroll tax cuts. The carbon fee would be a powerful nudge for everyone to consume less energy, and a compelling incentive for companies to invest in developing more energy-efficient and climate friendly fuels and technologies.

"But our political leaders should not pretend that finally putting a price on carbon will not affect gas and electricity prices. In fact, Congress and the President should advertise that price increases are coming. Why? So that taxpayers have a good reason to make the changes in their offices and homes that will protect them from the higher gas and electricity prices. If Americans know that higher prices are coming, they can use the extra money in their pockets to make their homes and offices more energy efficient -- which also can help put thousands of people to work -- and buy cars and trucks that use less gas... It's time for Plan B. As Al Gore pointed out decades ago when he first called for action against green house gases, let's stop taxing jobs and start taxing carbon." Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, Chair of the U.S. Climate Task Force (CTF) and head of the economic advisory firm Sonecon, LLC , served as Under Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration. Dr. Elaine C. Kamarck, former senior policy advisor to Vice President Al Gore, serves as CTF Co-Chair and lectures at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

GOP Candidates Knock Global Warming. By Darren Samuelsohn, Politico, August 18, 2010. "Fueled by anti-Obama rhetoric and news articles purportedly showing scientists manipulating their own data, Republicans running for the House, Senate and governor's mansions have gotten bolder in stating their doubts over the well-established link between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Ron Johnson, running against Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, is the latest in a line of Republicans to take a shot at the validity of global warming... Sharron Angle, the GOP opponent for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, said on her website in June that she thought legislation to curb greenhouse gases 'is based on an unscientific hysteria over the man-caused global warming hoax'... In California, Republican Senate nominee Carly Fiorina used a recent ad to mock Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Boxer for her description of climate change as a national security issue. 'Terrorism kills -- and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather,' the Fiorina says in the ad. Ken Buck, Colorado's Republican Senate nominee, is also on record saying he's not a believer in man-made global warming."

Cap-and-Trade Advocates Defend Climate Tactics. By Darren Samuelsohn, Politico, August 5, 2010. "Environmentalists went with an all-or-nothing strategy for the 111th Congress. Nothing won. Now, green groups licking their wounds after spending tens of millions of dollars to pass a cap-and-trade bill must answer serious questions about whether they are capable of playing another round of hardball. But D.C. environmental groups aren't looking to clean house. Activists at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Union of Concerned Scientists and Clean Energy Works said leading officials won't be fired because President Barack Obama isn't signing a climate bill into law. Steve Cochran, who ran EDF's national climate campaign, actually got a promotion to run the entire global warming team, including state and international efforts... 'I think the general view within the environmental community is consistent with mine: We ran a very effective, well-coordinated effort,' said Dan Lashof, director of NRDC's climate center. 'We fell victim to much broader politics that were beyond our control that really didn't have to do with the specifics of either the issue or the campaign,' Lashof added... Bill McKibben...co-founder of the advocacy group 350.org [said]… 'The environmental movement needs a radical overhaul if Congress is ever going to pass a climate bill."

And Now, We May Begin! Commentary by Charles Komanoff, CarbonTax.org, July 22, 2010. "And now, ve may begin? Readers of a certain age, and a certain literary bent, will recognize the words of Alexander Portnoy's psychiatrist, spoken at the close of Philip Roth's transgressive 1969 novel, Portnoy's Complaint. After lo these many years, they popped into my head today as I read that Senate Democrats had finally thrown in the towel on an energy bill that would have included a partial cap-and-trade provision for limiting carbon emissions from power plants. The bill, written by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, was touted by Washington insiders and some major environmental groups as this year's last hope for federal climate legislation. Yet it would have relied on carbon offsets and other dodges to postpone the day of reckoning with true, visible carbon emissions pricing - the cornerstone of meaningful climate policy...

"If you're in the climate movement, you recognize that fossil fuels' assault on Earth's climate is an ultimate form of oppression and injustice: of rich against poor, of the profligate against the frugal, of the present against the future. Ending this assault will require concerted action on many fronts; and it starts by internalizing the climate-damage costs of coal, oil and gas into their prices, so that the free ride for fossil fuels is ended and all of the alternatives, from energy efficiency, renewable energy and low-carbon fuels to conservation-based behavior and mindfulness toward energy consumption, may compete fairly and effectively. Political action to accomplish this must be done in bright sunlight, not in Beltway shadows. Cap-and-trade, let us hope, is dead. And now, we may begin!" Charles Komanoff is the cofounder and director of the Carbon Tax Center. Note his other recent commentary, Senate Climate Bill Dies -- Does the Environment Win?The Nation, July 28, 2010.

Democrats Call Off Climate Bill Effort. By Carl Hulse and David M. Herszenhorn, NYTimes, July 23, 2010. "The effort to advance a major climate change bill through the Senate this summer collapsed Thursday even as President Obama signed into law another top Democratic priority -- a bill to restore unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who have been out of work for six months or more. Bowing to political reality, Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, said the Senate would not take up legislation intended to reduce carbon emissions blamed as a cause of climate change, but would instead pursue a more limited measure focused on responding to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and tightening energy efficiency standards. 'We know where we are,' Mr. Reid told reporters after reviewing the state of energy legislation with Senate Democrats and administration officials. 'We know that we don't have the votes.'

"The decision was a major disappointment to conservation groups and lawmakers who had invested months in trying to negotiate legislation. The House last year passed its own climate change bill, a proposal that has created a backlash for some politically vulnerable Democrats. The outcome was also viewed as a setback by some utility executives who had hoped that Congress would set predictable rules governing carbon pollution. Carol M. Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, who appeared with Mr. Reid and Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is a chief author of the climate bill, said the Obama administration was not happy but would support Mr. Reid's decision. 'Obviously, everyone is disappointed that we do not yet have an agreement on comprehensive legislation,' she said."

Put a Price on Carbon. Commentary by Martin Lagod and Jason Scott, Politico, July 26, 2010. "Now that the Senate has again decided to hold off on a comprehensive energy and climate bill, we look back at the debate with frustration -- but also with lessons learned for the future. The debate came down to one question: Will putting a price on carbon create -- or cost -- U.S. jobs? Sadly, political fears allowed myths about the legislation to overshadow the strong reality that comprehensive reform will create jobs and lead to economic growth. As we look to the next round, we want to set the record straight and offer a preview of the arguments that senators and advocates should make when the bill is picked up again. We are clean energy investors who come from different political parties. Our separate companies, together with our investment partners, have more than $10 billion to invest in clean energy technologies and projects across the United States. We're the people who will help create the American jobs that clean energy will bring...

"The path to creating more U.S. jobs is simple: Pass legislation that eliminates uncertainty and levels the playing field, and investors will fund projects that create good jobs here at home. Rules bring certainty, certainty spurs investment, and investment creates jobs. In the United States, the single most powerful policy tool to do that is a market-based price for carbon. Putting a market price on carbon would allow for a fair-competition approach with the fossil fuel industry, which receives about $12 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies each year, according to the Environmental Law Institute. Putting a market price on carbon would provide clear price signals to investors like us. Then, the U.S. innovation engine -- our most valuable asset -- would be turned loose, and capital and U.S. jobs would follow." Martin Lagod, a Republican, is a managing director and co-founder of Firelake Capital Management in Palo Alto, Calif. Jason Scott, a Democrat, is managing partner and co-founder of EKO Asset Management Partners in New York. Both serve on the board of the Clean Economy Network.

British Columbia's Carbon Tax Is Looking Like a Winner. Commentary by Stewart Elgie, Nic Rivers and Nancy Olewiler, Ottawa Citizen, July 27, 2010. "On July 1, 2008, B.C. embarked on an ambitious climate policy path; it brought in North America's first ever carbon tax shift. Though praised by environmentalists and economists, the measure was soon met by a host of concerns -- that it could increase overall taxes, decrease growth, and hurt low-income families. Some pundits labeled it political suicide, particularly after the resounding defeat of Stéphane Dion's "Green Shift" in the subsequent federal election. Two years later, it is possible to make a preliminary assessment of the tax, to see what lessons it may offer for the rest of the country, and the world. The result: B.C.'s policy experiment seems to be working...

"B.C.'s carbon tax has two parts. First, it puts a price on emissions of carbon -- the main greenhouse gas, which comes from burning oil, gas or coal. That cost is now $20/ton (it rises by $5 annually). Second, the revenues are all plowed back into tax cuts for individuals and business. What effects has this policy had so far? Although it is impossible to precisely identify the impacts of the tax shift in an economy with thousands of changing variables, initial results allay concerns that it would harm the economy. In fact, B.C.'s economic growth in 2009 -- the first full year the tax was in effect -- was higher than Canada's as a whole. Unemployment, although high because of wider economic events, is below the national average and does not appear to have jumped when the tax shift came in.

"Perhaps even more significantly, for the average taxpayer, the carbon tax shift has been an economic boon. During 2008 and 2009, the tax raised $846 million. However, the province tied the carbon tax to reductions in personal and corporate income taxes, as well as tax credits to offset impacts on low-income individuals. The total value of these offsetting cuts was nearly $1.1 billion over those two years, meaning a net tax reduction for B.C. taxpayers of about $230 million... The early results of B.C.'s carbon tax experiment are in, and they look positive. At a time when political leadership on climate change is sorely lacking, B.C. has stuck its neck out and done what most experts say is the right thing. Let's hope other governments -- in Ottawa, Washington and around the world -- are watching." Stewart Elgie is a professor of environmental law and economics at University of Ottawa. Nic Rivers is an economist and Trudeau Scholar at Simon Fraser University. Nancy Olewiler is a professor and director of the School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser University. All are members of Sustainable Prosperity.

U.S. Inaction on Climate Troubles Global Talks. By Arthur Max, AP, August 1, 2010. "The failure of a climate bill in the U.S. Senate is likely to weigh heavily on international negotiations that begin Monday on a new agreement to control global warming. The decision to strike the bill from the Senate's immediate agenda has deepened the distrust among poor countries about the intentions of United States and other industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions that power their wealthy economies but risk causing the Earth to dangerously overheat, say climate activists. A split between rich and poor nations has characterized the talks since they began 2 1/2 years ago, but it widened after the disappointment of the Copenhagen climate summit last December that fell short of any binding agreement and produced only a brief document of political intentions.

"The withdrawal of the bill to cap U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prominent gas blamed for global warming, 'plays into the same old fault lines,' said Kelly Dent, of Oxfam International. It has let down developing countries that had looked to President Barack Obama's administration to seize the leadership in climate negotiations, she said Sunday from Bonn, Germany. Delegations from most of the 194 participating nations begin a five-day negotiating session in Bonn on Monday that is one of the last meetings before another decisive conference convenes at the end of the year in Cancun, Mexico. One more weeklong round of talks is scheduled for October in China. The two keys to any agreement are commitments by rich countries to cut emissions and their pledges to fund poor countries' actions to adapt to climate changes affecting agriculture and the frequency of extreme weather events like floods and drought. So far, Washington has not backed away from its promise at Copenhagen to reduce emissions 17% below 2005 levels over the next 10 years. But even that pledge, made more doubtful now by legislative inertia, has been roundly criticized as inadequate."

Hackers Shut Down E.U. Carbon-Trading Website. By Leigh Phillips, Guardian (UK), July 26, 2010. "Anti-carbon trading activists shut down the website of the European Climate Exchange (ECX), over the [July 24-25] weekend, replacing the site with a spoof page lampooning the industry. The website of the London-based carbon credit trading platform was hacked at close to midnight on Friday and showed the spoof homepage for around 22 hours. It then took technical staff another day to restore the official homepage. Instead of its normal rolling ticker data listing bids for carbon credit futures, the ECX website blared: 'Super promo - climate on sale: Guaranteed profit!' Explaining the carbon trade scam,' the spoof site decried how the EU's flagship environmental policy is 'susceptible to corporate lobbying,' offers industry 'licences to pollute so they can continue business-as-usual,' and 'generates outrageous profits for big industry polluters, investors in fraudulent offset projects [and] opportunist traders.'

Shortly after the ECX website went down, activists announced their handiwork on a number of environmental discussion groups, saying: In a public act of digital direct action, the ECX website was taken offline and replaced with our message in an effort to try to raise awareness about carbon trading as a dangerous false solution to the climate crisis.' One of the activists responsible, from the online activist group, Decocidio, told the Guardian: 'We feel the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is not well understood by the general public or even within the environmental movement. It is a major fraud touted by the mainstream media, politics, industry and lobbyists as the main solution.' The group is part of Earth First, a radical environmental protest organisation."

California, New Mexico and 3 Canadian Provinces Outline Regional Cap-and-Trade Program. By Margot Roosevelt, LATimes, July 28, 2010. "California, joined by New Mexico and three Canadian provinces, outlined a detailed plan Tuesday to curb greenhouse gas emissions in a regional cap-and-trade program by January 2012. The Western Climate Initiative, if it survives political hurdles, would be three times larger than an existing trading system for power plants in 10 Eastern states. It would cover not just the electricity sector, but most large industrial plants as well as transportation. Such state efforts are moving to the forefront just as national legislation to curb global warming pollution has stalled in Congress. However, implementation of the initiative by each state or province is by no means assured. A measure on California's November ballot, funded mainly by two Texas oil companies, would indefinitely delay AB 32, the state's 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act. That would nix the state's plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions through a cap-and-trade system."

Kerry-Lieberman Marks an Important Step Forward. Statement by Frances Beinecke, President, NRDC, May 12, 2010. "The growing oil catastrophe in the Gulf and the Massey mine disaster have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that we must start now to end our dangerous dependence on dirty energy, move toward safe and clean energy, and steadily cut carbon pollution. The bill released on Wednesday by Senators Kerry and Lieberman marks an important step toward passage of comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation by the Senate. Senators Kerry and Lieberman understand that Congress must enact a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill this year that puts America in control of our energy future. Senators Kerry and Lieberman should be commended for their hard work, determination and leadership on this issue. The core carbon pollution limits in the bill, covering all major pollution sources, are a solid foundation for Senate legislation. These emission limits, which will get tighter every year, will drive investments in clean energy that create jobs, cut pollution, and end our addiction to oil from dangerous locations, both offshore and overseas. The bill would be more effective if its overall pollution limits were backed up by minimum performance standards for the largest polluters. We will work to strengthen the bill to preserve more of the Clean Air Act's proven approach to cutting air pollution."

Building a Green Economy. Commentary by Paul Krugman, NYTimesMag, April 11, 2010. "The debate over climate economics looks very different from the inside than it often does in popular media. The casual reader might have the impression that there are real doubts about whether emissions can be reduced without inflicting severe damage on the economy. In fact, once you filter out the noise generated by special-interest groups, you discover that there is widespread agreement among environmental economists that a market-based program to deal with the threat of climate change -- one that limits carbon emissions by putting a price on them -- can achieve large results at modest, though not trivial, cost. There is, however, much less agreement on how fast we should move, whether major conservation efforts should start almost immediately or be gradually increased over the course of many decades. In what follows, I will offer a brief survey of the economics of climate change or, more precisely, the economics of lessening climate change. I'll try to lay out the areas of broad agreement as well as those that remain in major dispute. First, though, a primer in the basic economics of environmental protection... [End of article] We know how to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. We have a good sense of the costs -- and they're manageable. All we need now is the political will."