To be or not to be? That is a question already surrounding the issue of climate legilslation for action in 2009, even before the Obama Administration takes office. When question, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated the votes are there in the House, but that she wouldn't commit to 2009 action. Ed Markey (Chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, and chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment in the Energy and Commerce Committee) said that timing on action was "to be determined". Some organizations are already pushing back, making a call for action. 1Sky, for example, made a direct call for placing a climate bill on the top of the pile. A question to wonder: Is this the best approach for this time, for this moment? I'm simply not sure ...

The entire financial wreck and the inadequacies of post-crash management/oversight highlights a very serious issue related to Cap & Trade: all of the associated costs for monitoring, oversite regimes, and the (HIGH) potential for abuse that creates gross inefficiencies. There is a very simple shorthand differentiating "tax" and "cap":

• Tax provides a certainty of revenue but an uncertainty of impact
• CAP (Auction and Trade, or CAT) provides (it is said) a certainty as to impact (maximum pollution) with an uncertainty as to revenue generation.

In the past, I've been supportive of a low/growing guaranteed fee (fee much better word than tax, see Global Warming Impact) associated with a Cap/Auction/Trade policy. Considering the shenigans surrounding Wall Street, a convincing case seems to be developing that the United States might simply be unable to put into place, at this time, an effective enforcement regime at an acceptable cost re a CAP (or CAT).  Based on the experiences with the Lieberman/Warner Coal Subsidy Act (no, not just my cat fight with Environmental Defense) and the 'Green Groups' (and others') inability to provide a strong voice as to the economic value of moving out smartly in the face of NAM/ACCF and others' lies, it is uncertain that there will be enough strength of voice to be able to sway 'moderates' into something strong enough in targets. And, then there is the question of how well even a weak (inadequate target) bill will be able to structure something against leakage, in any event. And, so on ... Now, President-Elect Obama did state that he would push for climate legislation in his November video-taped presentation on climate change

My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change ... That will start with a federal cap and trade system.

I wonder, however, as President-Elect Obama emphasized the jobs and investment aspect in that statement: " My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process." Consider the economic situation. Consider the priorities and issues that Obama will have to fight for in the coming weeks and months. Consider the resources that will be put into the fight against climate legislation by dead-enders.

I wonder ... Will the Obama Administration will have the resources to put together a strong enough effort in this arena to mute the $100s of millions from USCOC, NAM, etc about the 'damage to the economy' that has a hearing with 'moderate' Democrats like Jim Webb and new members of Congress like the otherwise progressive Eric Massa? In light of those, one can easily see pursuing a "trojan horse" strategy on climate change through making progress via clean energy, energy efficiency, green jobs ... even if a formal cap is not established during the year. Considering these issues, it is hard to be motivated to jump on a bandwagon to push strongly for a Cap & Trade as the top item on the agenda.

Yes, climate legislation is a "good" thing ... but it is not enough nor, perhaps, should it be the top priority. The Trojan Horse approach to addressing climate change might be the more powerful, efficent and smarter route to follow. Seek very strong action in energy efficiency / renewables / shifting foreign assistance toward sustainability (especially in IMF and WB guidance/action) to achieve meaningful real near-term impacts and then using those successes as a 'see, cleaning up the environment is profitable' to help enable a meaningful Cap & Trade. I would much (MUCH) prefer to see energy going into fighting for a much (MUCH) greener stimulus package, something that will have real impact both in economic and climate terms.

• A fight not for token energy efficiency ($16 billion proposed in a Washington Post ad by a coalition yesterday), but multiples of that. (Such as, just for private (residential and commercial) building infrastructure, the $170 billion of the Architecture 2030 plan.).
• A fight not for 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025, but for a Gore or Google or A Siegel-like target for renewable energy infrastructure (100% clean electricity) by 2019 or by 2029.
• And, so on ...

If we engage, push energy for a Cap & Trade (actually a "CAT": Cap, Auction, and Trade) plan now, rather than expending 99+% of energy on making the stimulus package as strong and forward-looking and as GREEN as possible, we might risk losing too much in the coming weeks/months to the fossil fools and others. The problem is serious ... The general discussion, when it comes to "Cap" programs is a target somewhere in the range of an 80 percent reduction of CO2 emissions, in the developed world, from 1990 levels.

This will, if we are quite lucky (there are many assumptions within the modeling that raise questions as to whether that reduction would enable stabilization due to, for example, reduced ocean/plant ability to absorb carbon), stabilize the CO2 concentrations at about 450 parts per million. We are, however, already far less than that (about 388 ppm) and we are seeing serious global impacts from acidification of the oceans to melting glaciers and permafrost to disturbed weather patterns to an accelerating extinction rate to ... And, even with the 388 ppm, there is a tremendous (several decades) lag time in impact. If our emissions were to, magically, end today, the planet would take a long time to return to some form of equilibrium. Some of the top people in the field of climate science, most notably NASA's Jim Hansen, are calling for a target not of 450 ppm but of 350 ppm (or less), ten percent below where we are today.

To remind us all, pre-industrialization CO2 levels in the atmosphere were about a third lower than today's levels -- one-third of the CO2 in the atmosphere derive from human activities, most notably digging/pumping up naturally sequestered carbon (coal, oil, natural gas, peat) and burning it. Thus, another question about seeking a cap & trade bill as a top priority in 2009: Will the necessary emerging targets (perhaps carbon neturality or even a climate-friendly path toward reducing atmospheric CO2 levels) even be on the table if the most aggressive bill in the Senate during the 110th Congress and President-Elect Obama's platformonly called for an 80 percent reduction by 2050?

Considering doubt ... Now, if I'm uncertain, what do you think a broader community might be like? Now, I stand ready to be convinced of the error of my ways ... thus, convince me!

Related Reading:
The German Perspective Pt 1: The Difficulties with Climate Negotiations
Investing in Our Future: Support for a Clean Energy Economy