Comments on: Carbon Wars II: The Sequel

By: Tal

Tal — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:56:30 +0000

I’m not sure that current rallies being organized by Energy Citizens represent a dramatic shift in the stance of the US oil industry toward climate change. It smacks of opportunism by the API to me. Viewing the success of fake grassroots protests against the health care legislation, the API might have sensed an opportunity to flex some muscle on the climate change issue. Historically the exposure of industry funded front groups behind supposedly grass roots movement may have proved damaging, but recently that has done little to discredit or disempower the protests against health care.

As you point out in the article, the API is comprised of a set of companies with diverse interests. This seems to be reflected in Energy Citizens broad message that any climate change regulation is a tax that will raise energy costs and harm the US economy. Some of the member companies of API probably support the complete opposition to the climate bill, while others are probably made squeamish by such a blunt and un-nuanced attack. GE certainly has an interest in renewables and energy efficient turbines and appliances. Nevertheless, all member companies of the API will benefit if it can prove that it’s a force that Congress and the White House must listen to.

By: David Levy

David Levy — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:59:22 +0000

Good question, Tom. Did the oil industry’s lawyers miss the fine print on the allocation mechanism? Unlikely! Overall, the oil and gas industry has felt less threatened by cap-and-trade than coal, and maybe the administration was more eager to buy off coal industry opposition with allowances.
On the pricing question, giving some emission allowances out for free should not stop prices rising to reflect the marginal cost of allowances (though the utilities are expressly meant to use them to subsidize rates – not sure how that will work!)

By: Tom Fiddaman

Tom Fiddaman — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:41:28 +0000

I’m very curious how the lopsided allowance allocation you mention in #2 came about. The current allocation shelters consumers from a price signal in residential electric power, gas, and heating oil. That’s a dubious idea – especially for the long duration involved – but why not do the same for transport fuels? Clearly electric utility PACs have a lot of power, but so does big oil. BP, ConocoPhillips, and Shell are members of USCAP, so you can’t blame it entirely on failure to engage with cap & trade design.

By: Ross Gelbspan

Ross Gelbspan — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:23:08 +0000

David — The “Carbon Wars II” is a wonderfully accurate and penetrating analysis. I’m not totally sure I agree with the whole piece — but the key is your highlighting the roles of the Chamber of Commerce as well as the API. And, of course, the duplicity of some companies calling for carbon taxes at the same time they’re playing this game

For instance, we watch the Lehrer News Hour which is sponsored in part by Chevron which boasts of its commitment to clean energy — after spending more than a decade as a central driver of the GCC and its terribly destructive disinformation campaigns.

At any rate, I’d love you to find a visible mainstream outlet for this piece. It’s very much on point — and extremely well done. It deserves a big audience — at least among those of us who are paying attention! Thanks much for sharing this one.

By: Josh Maxwell

Josh Maxwell — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:00:03 +0000

I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.