Not every discussion can contain every point that has been made through 10s of posts. Re The Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act:
would give 40% of pollution permits (between $500 to >$1000 billion in value) to serial polluters. This will make dealing with climate change more expensive for society while rewarding bad actors for their past bad behavior and lowering their incentives to change future behavior.
would increase, rather than reduce, social and economic inequity in the United States
Does not have meaningful provisions for, for example, renewable power.
targets are inadequate according to the science. It would leave us far below a 50% chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.
has paths via an appointed board for weakening targets but not the potential for that same board to strengthen targets, if that is what is required.
Heavily subsidizes carbon capture & sequestration (CCS), which is little more than science experiment at this time and uncertain whether it will make sense, rather than being more balanced in potential remedial paths into the future.
1. Why give "transition assistance" in terms of free pollution permits? The history of such permit giveaways is windfall profits, not increased investment to reduce the pollution faster. If it is for transition, why not have the permits auctioned and then use the revenue directly to speed moves to lower carbon? For example, rather than free permits to SE US coal-fired electricity utilities, why not commit those permit revenues for hastening low/non-carbon emissions energy generation for the SE to lower the cost of the "transition" to a low carbon economy?
2. RE the technologies: and where does that $1.1 trillion go? How much of that is dedicated to, for example, Carbon Capture & Sequestration for the coal industry?
3. As I've written multiple times, if the 2050 target would be the only problem, then there really wouldn't be that much of an issue. In 42 years, I suspect a few things might change along the road. But, there are many other serious problems within this.
4. What is the percentage of permit giveaways through 2032? 40%?
I do not want to deny McCain his due -- he deserves credit for genuine political courage on climate change in a party that is actively hostile to even a modicum of sanity on the issue. But that courage is admirable only relative to that party.
Judged on its own merits, McCain's climate commitment -- relative to what's offered on the other side of the political aisle, and more importantly, relative to the increasing alarm we hear from climate scientists -- is simply and unmistakably inadequate.
A far more effective and far less expensive path toward the heat reduction element (alone) would be to mandate white roofing, which would be far less expensive (actually, profitable, since it is also more energy efficient than tar roofing) and have a fast impact.