Op-Eds Examine Benefits, Drawbacks of Cap-and-Trade Proposals

Op-eds continue to tackle the question of cap and trade. Andrew C. Revkin wrote on the Dot Earth blog posted by the New York Times that the Breakthrough Institute research on cap and trade had "encountered serial failure because it doesn't address the main barrier to the widespread deployment of clean energy technologies: the technology-based price gap between new clean energy and mature fossil fuels." Revkin stressed that "this moment demands a fundamentally new strategy designed to overcome the inherent political obstacles to carbon pricing and simultaneously achieve the primary objective upon which our climate future hinges: making clean energy cheap in real, unsubsidized terms."

Sen. Ben Nelson, R-Neb., wrote in the McCook Daily Gazette that because all electricity in Nebraska was provided by public utilities, which lack investor funding, cap and trade was "essentially a tax on carbon that is emitted from a variety of sources, including coal-fired power plants that provide most of the electricity we use in Nebraska." Nelson wrote that if such legislation "were to pass, it would significantly increase utility rates in Nebraska which would damage our economy. That would mean much higher electricity bills for homeowners, for businesses and for farmers who depend on reasonable electricity rates for irrigation."

In an op-ed published by Roll Call, former EPA Administrator and ex-New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, who co-chairs the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, and Thomas D. Peterson, president and CEO of the Center for Climate Strategies, wrote of the three keys to the coalition's "Policy Roadmap for Clean Energy." They were: "Enact policies to take control of America’s energy security; Ensure access to financing for clean energy projects;" and "Increase investment in clean energy jobs."