Comments on: Obama to host climate summit? http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/01/obama-to-host-climate-summit/ Reality-based commentary on politics and policy in Massachusetts and around the nation Mon, 20 May 2013 03:02:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: stomv http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/01/obama-to-host-climate-summit/#comment-308015 stomv Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:11:36 +0000 http://bluemassgroup.com/?p=52198#comment-308015 OK, lets say you've got the US Senate (!?). You've still got to get any of it past the House. Sure, there's a few GOPers in downstate NY, coastal NJ, and FL who might be willing to spend Federal funds to sure up their shores. But here's what the GOP won't go for: * taxes to provide economic incentive to reduce GHG emissions * regulations which restrict egregious GHG emissions * more spending on public transit * expanding tax incentives for renewable generation And here's what the Dems won't go for: * expanding subsidies of nuclear generation * expanding natural gas extraction in an attempt to squeeze out coal and/or petroleum * cutting some other gov't program to pay for this one And neither side will go for: * slicing the mortgage subsidy, which serves to subsidize housing with more square (and cubic) feet, thereby requiring more fossil fuel to heat and cool than it would otherwise. It also seems to accelerate sprawl, but that's another matter. So, great. Obama's got the summit. He can have the EPA do what it should be doing -- protecting the environment -- by ramping up restrictions on GHG emissions from point sources (power plants, industrial sites, etc). He can direct the gov't to invest its own money in efficiency for its own operations, but that's small potatoes. The questions in my mind are: <strong>What actions that would tangibly affect GHG reduction can the POTUS do without Congress? What actions is the 2012-2013 Congress willing to do?</strong> OK, lets say you’ve got the US Senate (!?). You’ve still got to get any of it past the House. Sure, there’s a few GOPers in downstate NY, coastal NJ, and FL who might be willing to spend Federal funds to sure up their shores. But here’s what the GOP won’t go for:
* taxes to provide economic incentive to reduce GHG emissions
* regulations which restrict egregious GHG emissions
* more spending on public transit
* expanding tax incentives for renewable generation
And here’s what the Dems won’t go for:
* expanding subsidies of nuclear generation
* expanding natural gas extraction in an attempt to squeeze out coal and/or petroleum
* cutting some other gov’t program to pay for this one
And neither side will go for:
* slicing the mortgage subsidy, which serves to subsidize housing with more square (and cubic) feet, thereby requiring more fossil fuel to heat and cool than it would otherwise. It also seems to accelerate sprawl, but that’s another matter.

So, great. Obama’s got the summit. He can have the EPA do what it should be doing — protecting the environment — by ramping up restrictions on GHG emissions from point sources (power plants, industrial sites, etc). He can direct the gov’t to invest its own money in efficiency for its own operations, but that’s small potatoes. The questions in my mind are:
What actions that would tangibly affect GHG reduction can the POTUS do without Congress? What actions is the 2012-2013 Congress willing to do?

]]>