The Wax Man and Markey Show

       Waxman-Markey was always going to be a controversial bill.  Our opinion hear at the SS is that carbon emissions must be reduced via an effective global emissions regime.  While some might debate the science behind global warming, its prudent to move forward with precautionary measures give the astronomical increase in green house gas levels over the last century.  Though we believe a carbon tax would be a far simpler and more effective way of reducing emissions, cap-and-trade is an acceptable substitute provided we get it right.  

       The focal point of carbon policy in the U.S. should be federal subsidies\funding for the construction of a nuclear power-based utility system, a la France.  Wind and solar are far too expensive, unreliable, and inconsistent to be used in the near to medium term future on the massive grid scale necessary.  Nuclear power is safe, tested, releases no emissions, simply needs a storage place for the spent fuel rods, and produces energy like Barney Frank on cocaine.  Safety concerns are valid, but similar to worrying about accountants' paper cuts when debating new taxes.  So the first problem is that there is no decisive focus on nuclear energy. Nuclear is the only realistic solution for our utility emissions in the next 20 years.  If I hear a Democrat from West Virginia talk about "clean coal" technology and sequestration again I'm going to have an aneurysm due to an overdose of misinformation and lunacy.  

       The second issue is that there is nothing in the bill that involves the Chinese and Indians. Some have said the bill alone will be used as collateral in international climate change negotiations coming up.  However its done, its crucial that the we get the developing world to agree to a plan capping their per-capita emissions at a similar level to ours in the long-term.  Without an agreement (especially from China who now uses more coal than we do) we're using a bucket to bail out a sinking battleship.  Both countries will be loth to make any commitments.  In the opinion of the SS, the only way to strike a compromise is for Americans (with very high per-capita emissions levels) to essentially compensate the developing world (very low per-capital emissions levels) for not consuming at the same level they do.  Otherwise, China\India will most certainly ascend to the American level over the next two decades, making Waxman-Markey twelve hundred sheets of economically damaging toilet paper.  The best way to do this would be to provide nuclear technology to these countries at a price that would be competitive with building coal fired plants.  This would be a difficult (read: politically impossible and expensive) feat, but is probably the karmic price we pay for spending a hundred years consuming hundreds of times more energy than our Third World counterparts.  It would also streamline with the development of an international nuclear energy bank meant to ensure access to peaceful nuclear technology to all countries (but hey, one thing at a time).  Massive social bargains such as these are simple public policy and may be necessary to prevent the Amazon from advancing on Washington in fifty years.