Congressional Proposals
Dr. John R. Christy, Written Testimony before the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
14 November 2007
Dr. Christy is a Professor of Atmosperic Science at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, Director of the Earth System Science Center, and State Climatologist.
Fred Smith Testimony before Senate EPW Panel
13 February 2007
CEI President Fred Smith testifies before Congress to discuss the unintended consequences of a cap and trade emissions reduction policy.
Cap & Trade is the Wrong Policy to Curb Greenhouse Gases for the United States
Michael Canes, Marshall Institute, 20 July 2007
Dr. Canes argues that implementation of a GHG Cap and Trade system in the U.S. would be a serious policy mistake: it would impose high costs on the economy; result in volatile prices for allowances and fossil fuels; involve government creation of wealth, creating vast opportunities for "rent-seeking," influence peddling and corruption; and require extensive and expensive worldwide monitoring.
Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals
MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, 27 April 2007
Carbon caps in a scenario where the U.S. matches the carbon reductions of other developed nations will cost 1.45 percent of total U.S. welfare by 2050. A more aggressive strategy where the U.S. takes on more of the burden – a scenario that has been demanded under the Kyoto Protocol, for example – would cost 1.79 percent of total U.S. welfare by 2050. For this cost, less then 0.5 degrees Celsius of warming will mitigated.
Trade-Offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions
Congressional Budget Office Staff, CBO, 25 April 2007
In light of scientific evidence about the potential damages from climate change, the Congress is considering legislation that would impose a “cap-and-trade” program to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas. The merit of a cap-and-trade program is that, like a tax on CO2 emissions, it could motivate businesses and households to reduce emissions in the least costly way. Such programs have been used successfully in the United States to limit the cost of reducing emissions of other air pollutants, such as lead in gasoline and nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide from electricity generators. (Can we do the heading below as a heading on the “Congressional Proposals” page? It’d be nice to highlight these specific pieces as related to the 2007 bill.)
Elements of the 2007 energy bill pertinent to global warming
Gone with the Wind: Renewable Portfolio Standard Threatens Consumers and the Industrial Heartland
Myron Ebell and William Yeatman, CEI On Point, 19 June 2007
A federal renewable energy standard would raise the cost of energy for all Americans, but disproportionately so for the Southeast and the Midwest.
First, Do No Harm to Motorists
Sam Kazman, CEI On Point, 19 June 2007
Congressional fuel efficiency regulations put motorists in harms way.
Why Price Gouging Doesn’t Exist
Iain Murray, CEI On Point, 19 June 2007
Congress is chasing a chimera when it legislates against price gouging at the pump.
Corn Based Ethanol: A Case Study in the Law of Unintended Consequences
Fran Smith, CEI Issue Analysis, 14 June 2007
Author explores the environmental and economic consequences of expanded ethanol production.