Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act Round Up

June 2, 2008 |

A round-up of Breakthrough's analysis of the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act:

  • Who Killed Cap & Trade?

    The new political center on climate will be defined around cost-containment and technology investment. If it's done right, it will establish American economic leadership on energy, strengthen our economy, and create a win-win for Americans and Chinese alike.

  • The Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act: How Much Will it Cost?
    And where will the money go? We can't leave it to opponents of action to define the debate over costs. Breakthrough's initial analysis of the Boxer version of Lieberman-Warner finds that it would cost the average American $590 every year in higher prices, and that $37, or 6 percent, would go to clean energy.

  • Will the Climate Security Act Reduce Emissions?
    No -- at least not until 2030, and perhaps longer. That's the conclusion of an increasing number of energy experts and commentators. The problem? In an effort to contain costs and avoid increased energy prices, the Climate Security Act allows firms to delay action into the future and purchase cheap allowances.

  • The Unintended Consequences of Lieberman-Warner
    Does the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act contain a loophole that would allow financial speculators to manipulate the price of carbon allowances, escalate the cost of U.S. emissions reduction efforts, and hinder the development of clean energy?

  • A Fairy Tale Alternative to the CSA Bill
    Just as the utterly disappointing Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (CSA) goes up for debate, Congressman Ed Markey has released his own version of climate legislation, this time with real money invested in clean energy RD&D - $25 billion a year. Sound too good to be true? It is.

  • The Fig Leaf of Targets and Timetables
    Climate activists have succeeded in getting politicians to commit to reducing U.S. emissions 80 percent by 2050. But the Lieberman-Warner Climate Stewardship Act reveals that the obsession with targets and timetables gives politicians the political cover they need to postpone actual action until 2025 and probably much later - all while spending next to nothing on technology development and deployment today.

  • Why Sky Trust Won't Fly
    If we want to protect the atmosphere for generations to come, revenue recycling is a giant step backwards, squandering funds that could be better used to drive down the price of clean energy.