Clean coal and nuclear are cornerstones of Sen. Graham’s clean energy proposal. (image: treehugger.com)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), part of a trio including Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) working on compromise climate legislation, has begun circulating a draft of his own bill that would establish a clean energy standard for utilities, reports The Hill’s E2 Wire blog. Graham’s draft (full text available here) may or may not be included in any broader legislation that Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are working on, and could move forward as a separate bill.

The notable feature of Graham’s clean energy standard is its inclusiveness—renewable sources like wind, solar, and biomass would qualify as clean energy, but so would nuclear power and coal plants that capture and sequester carbon emissions. His proposal would require utilities to produce progressively more electricity from clean sources: 13 percent in 2012, 25 percent in 2025, and 50 percent in 2050. While many Democrats and environmentalists oppose a standard that considers coal and nuclear to be “clean,” many Republicans insist that only coal and nuclear will allow their regions to produce the energy they need.

Climate legislation has faced a slew of setbacks, and Democrats have indicated a willingness to make concessions to nuclear power, clean coal, and offshore oil and gas drilling in exchange for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. Whether Graham’s draft bill is merely the first step in renewed debate over climate and energy legislation or the foundation of a future Senate bill remains to be seen.

The potential economic cost of a cap and trade system in the US has drawn heavy criticism. (image: southcarolina1670.files.wordpress.com)

Since everything costs money, there is an economic dimension to every policy decision.

The proposed implementation of a cap and trade policy in the US aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions is no exception. The idea behind it is that the amount of carbon any given emitter—such as a power plant—can give off is capped or limited. To emit more than that, additional emissions allowances must be purchased, which, of course, costs money. Therefore, cap and trade is, at its heart, a tax on carbon—it makes it more expensive to emit. And since carbon emissions are a by-product of all combustion, it’s really a tax on burning fuel: coal, natural gas, and oil. In trying to restrict or reduce carbon emissions, the government increases the cost of generating power, providing heat, and many other industrial activities. Cap and trade is therefore as much economic regulation as environmental.

As economic regulation, it may be disastrous. There are a number of different problems with or challenges to it as economic policy. This is not to say that it is or should be a non-starter—the benefits may outweigh the cost. But any honest discussion of cap and trade MUST include the economic costs of the policy, which can be roughly organized into the following issues:

1) Cap and trade will cost the average American. Lest you think that this concern is just propaganda from Obama administration enemies, the administration itself has admitted that the costs of cap and trade will trickle down to American families. For example, in September 2009, a Treasury Department study found that the cost to taxpayers would be between $100 billion and $200 billion per year, equivalent to a 15 percent income tax hike. That study was based on one particular methodology—assuming that all allowances are auctioned by the government (rather than given away for free) and converting the resulting income into its equivalent in tax receipts. Other methodologies find other costs, ranging from, from example, a MIT study cited by cap and trade advocates that puts the cost at $800 per family per year, to the $3,100 per family per year quoted by House Republican John Boehner.

In fairness, nobody knows for sure what the additional cost will be—not only is there little precedent to look to, but many details remain up in the air. But given that even cap and trade supporters find an annual average cost of several hundred dollars per year, it’s simply not reasonable to posit carbon reduction without cost. (And not logical, either—does anyone really think that businesses paying more for carbon will absorb that cost without passing it on to consumers?)

2) Can we afford it in a recession? Unemployment remains high, underemployment even higher, and, stock market gains notwithstanding, a prodigious amount of personal and corporate wealth has been wiped out. Is this the time to increase costs? Shortly, there will be a chance to see what Californians think: a state assemblyman is trying to put a ballot initiative before voters that would suspended the state’s own cap and trade scheme (passed in 2006; to become effective in 2012) until a time when state unemployment, currently at 12.3 percent, falls below 5.5 percent. What seemed supportable when the economy was growing and unemployment barely touched 5 percent seems dangerous when 1 in 8 are out of a job. The problem is not only the additional cost to cash-strapped taxpayers—a study commissioned for the California Small Business Roundtable pegged the cost of California’s cap and trade scheme at up to $3,857 per household—but also the potential to drive business and much-needed jobs away.

3) Anything other than universal cap and trade will encourage outsourcing economic activity to polluters. The problem is that in our global age, there’s always a race to the bottom—businesses will relocate, or at least outsource production and services, to the least expensive place they can. That’s why toys are made in China and IT call centers are in India. One of California’s concerns about their own cap and trade scheme is it might drive energy-intensive industries across state borders, to Texas to Nevada, where there are no such limitations on carbon emissions.

Or cap and trade might drive industry overseas, to places like China and India. The developing world has been resisting the same hard limits on emissions that they want the developed world to embrace. If it’s cheaper to emit carbon in China or India, it’s also cheaper to manufacture there; when you stack that advantage with the advantage of low wages, it’s easy to imagine a cap and trade regime that’s not universally applied throughout the world driving business to countries that have not accepted emissions limits.

Worse, those countries are generally the “dirtiest” on a per capita basis. They have lower-tech, less efficient infrastructures on average, as well as markedly less environmental, health, and worker safety regulation of all types. Shifting industry to the developing world results in more pollution than keeping it in the developed world, which means that anything less than completely universal cap and trade may end up increasing carbon emissions.

4) Under cap and trade, trade in carbon allowances may turn in the next big financial bubble. A study by a respected, pro-environment nongovernmental organization, Friends of the Earth International, says that the world’s largest functioning cap and trade market may create the next apocalyptic financial meltdown. That’s the European Union’s carbon market, in which a cap and trade scheme has been operating for several years. The problem is, in the words of FoE: “The majority of the [carbon allowance] trade is carried out not between polluting industries and factories covered by carbon trading schemes, but by banks and investors who profit from speculation on the carbon markets—packaging carbon credits into increasingly complex financial products similar to the ‘shadow finance’ around sub-prime mortgages which triggered the recent economic crash.”

That shouldn’t be surprising: Wall Street and its global counterparts have shown they will speculate in any and everything in which they can make a buck. That’s Wall Street’s purpose and its reason for existence; it’s no more exceptional or unusual for Wall Street to speculate than it is for scorpion to sting. That means if cap and trade is implemented, special care must be taken to prevent financial players from jumping in, dominating, and distorting the market, with potentially disastrous results.

Beyond Europe, actual experience with carbon trading is limited. U.S. cap and trade legislation, for example, has not yet passed Congress. However, some states are not waiting on federal legislation. Instead, they’re looking to form their own or regional cap and trade markets—in particular, a number of Northeastern states have already formed a functioning cap and trade marketplace. That may provide the chance to accrue experience with cap and trade on a manageable scale, though as per California’s concern, it does create that potential for a race to the bottom.

The largest functioning U.S. cap and trade market is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative centered around New York. First mapped out in 2003, it’s had some success, though more in terms of raising revenue so far than in reducing carbon. This revenue can be applied for good, public purposes; the money raised by RRGI in New York is used to fund a Green Jobs/Green New York Act which pays for energy-saving projects.

That’s also a feature of the California plan currently under attack—carbon allowances will be sold to businesses, allowing the government to pocket the revenue and return it to its citizens. However, that’s not a feature of all cap and trade plans, which leads to the fifth cap and trade economic issue:

5) Qui bono, or who benefits? The cap and trade legislation working through Congress calls for giving away a large number of carbon allowances to certain industries. The industries (like utilities or steel manufacturers) that get free allowances will reap large benefits compared to industries (like oil or food packaging) that have to pay for their initial allocation. Moreover, giving away any substantial number of allowances will result in a net transfer of wealth from the country at large to the recipients of the free allowances. In both cases, these transfers come about because the holders of free licenses can sell them to other businesses, which then pass the cost along to consumers.

This was found in Europe’s experience, where “an allocation approach that gives all allowances for free to directly affected industries will have the overall effect of transferring some wealth from the broad public (in this case consumers) to those industries.” Thus, any scheme or mechanism for allocating carbon allowances that plays favorites will create economic winners and losers.

Of course, if you don’t give allowances away—if you monetize completely the right to emit carbon by selling all allowances (at auction or otherwise), you still need to contend with a sixth economic cap and trade issue:

6) Money from cap and trade is difficult to account for and may be easily diverted. Any time an enormous new pool of money is created, there’s an equally enormous temptation for fraud, corruption, and gerrymandering. For example, half of New York’s Green Jobs/Green New York funds were diverted away from their intended use to the general state budget, going the way of such other diverted funds as pension plan or unemployment fund contributions. In Europe, $7.4 billion of tax revenue was lost in a just a year-and-half from cap and trade fraud.

As discussed above, if you don’t capture the benefit of selling carbon allowances for the state, private parties may instead snatch up the benefit. But if you do try to capture it, you leave it open to the same problems that beset every large, new, public revenue source. Is it possibly the case that any cap and trade plan simply too large, with too much money at stake, to be run fairly and efficiently? At a time of spiraling budget deficits and soaring spending, do we really want to take billions more out of the private sector and put it into government hands? But if not, what’s the alternative—do we let a relative handful of private parties monetize a public resource for their own benefit?

There is no simple right answer. The point, though, is that cap and trade is arguably more complex on the economic side than on the environmental or scientific side. It’s therefore vital to consider the economic issues as carefully as ecological ones. It’s even worth considering, as suggested by the Director of the University of California Energy Institute, whether cap and trade is even the right way to reduce carbon.

That gentleman, Dr. Severin Borenstein, contends that it’s almost impossible to set the cost of emitting carbon just right—too low, and you don’t affect meaningful reductions in emissions; too high, and you risk substantial economic harm. That’s why he advocates technological fixes—investing heavily in new energy sources and greater energy efficiency—as a better solution than taxing carbon.

Borenstein might be right. He might be wrong. But given the manifest complexities of cap and trade, it’s a point worth considering. After all, at this point a substantial portion of not just U.S. policymakers but world leaders have been spending a great deal of time and effort on designing a cap and trade plan for more than a year, with little to show for it. It’s possible that this shows that setting up a fair and workable cap and trade system is a problem without a solution.

John Cole, the Scranton Times-Tribune via cagle.com. (image: cagle.com)

The Copenhagen Conference dominated energy news this week, shedding light on some of the peculiar habits of Denmark’s capital city. Even though the city is hosting a global climate conference, stores on the Stroget, one of Copenhagen’s most popular streets for window-shopping, leave their doors open to entice customers, reports Lars Kroldrup at the New York Times’ Green Inc. blog. Stores leave their doors open throughout the winter, freezing temperatures or no, letting heat and energy escape far more than any crack in the window.

Copenhagen’s mayor was worried that the city would set a bad example in a different way, and distributed postcards to 160 hotels in the city in an effort to curb prostitution, which is legal in Denmark, for the duration of the conference. Well, it backfired. As the Copenhagen Post reports, a sex workers interest organization in the city decided to offer free services to anyone who presented one of the anti-prostitution postcards.

Peak oil theory says that eventually even a country as rich in oil as Saudi Arabia will run out of the stuff, but even the most alarmist believer in peak oil might be surprised that Saudi Arabia is running out of sand. Stuart Burns at MetalMiner reports that Saudi Arabia has halted its sand exports, since it doesn’t have enough in places that would make it easy to export, which is in turn slowing down construction throughout the Middle East. Are we facing a future of “peak sand”?

It’s not just environmentalists who are eagerly hoping for cap and trade legislation—Goldman Sachs wants it, too. Bradford Plumer of the New Republic investigates the risks of creating a vast carbon market for huge financial institutions, but also why cap and trade, because it would bring in Wall Street geniuses, may be more successful at reducing emissions than the alternatives.

Construction of a wind farm in West Virginia has been halted, and it had nothing to do with big oil, corporate greed, or Americans’ attachment to their cars. It was stopped by the Indiana bat. As Maria Glod of the Washington Post reports, the Indiana bat is an endangered species and the wind energy project was mere miles away from limestone caverns that provide a home for many of them.

Europol’s investigation found extensive fraud in Europe’s carbon markets. (image: gouverner.net)

While debate about carbon emissions management rages at the UN’s Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the New York Times brings a cautionary tale into the proceedings regarding a major part of many nations’ carbon-reduction strategies: the system of cap and trade. The Green Inc. blog reports an announcement by Europol that cap and trade fraud has cost European governments $7.4 billion in lost tax revenues in the past year and a half. In light of these discoveries, a number of member nations, including the UK, the Netherlands, France, and Spain, have suspended the sale of permits, or altered their policies regarding how their value-added tax was assessed on permits.

In the US, several northeastern states have developed a cap and trade system, but the Obama administration and its Democratic supporters have faced fierce opposition to their plans to institute cap and trade nationwide. While there is plenty of time for the government to study the mistakes of Europe’s policies, fraud on this level does echo the warnings of many naysayers, such as the NGO Friends of the Earth, who only last month released a statement that concluded that the EU’s system posed significant financial risks.

More concrete measures to combat global warming have come out of the Massachusetts Statehouse than all of Washington D.C. (image: essential-architecture.com)

Not all of the nation’s political power resides in Washington.

According to an article published on Tuesday by Yale Environment 360, while the federal government has had difficulty formulating a national climate change policy, many state governments have taken action on their own. And the laws coming from such cities as Sacramento, Hartford, Honolulu, Boston, Annapolis and Trenton have all contributed to a significant reduction of the nation’s carbon output.

The article cites a study from Environment America that says the collective actions of state governments will reduce carbon emissions by 536 million metric tons by 2020, about 7 percent less than what America produced in 2007. This is a large chunk of the figure that is being bandied about in Congress, which is considering legislation that, by 2020, would reduce the nation’s carbon emissions by 17 percent of 2005’s levels.

Greenhouse gas reduction initiatives sponsored by state and local governments constitute a growing trend in the US. In Maine, a community-owned wind farm provides electricity for remote parts of the state. In Massachusetts, state law requires that all heating oil products be comprised of a certain percentage of biofuel that will increase over time; both Maine and New York are considering similar proposals. Wind energy in Texas, the nation’s leader in using this renewable energy source, has helped to reduce carbon emissions in that state by four percent from 2004 to 2007. And California, which if it were an independent nation, would have the eighth biggest economy in the world, has proposed its own cap-and-trade system.

With so much progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving toward renewable energy sources at the state and local level, it’s the federal government that has to play catch-up. As one expert told Yale Environment 360, “States have been leading the way for the last nine or 10 years in the U.S., and they intend to continue playing that role. They’re looking for a federal partner.”

While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest business coalition in the country, has indicated it can live with some sort of cap-and-trade or similar carbon reduction legislation, many have continued to pressure federal officials to oppose any new regulations. Many moderate Senate Republicans, some of whom Senate Democrats may need to court in order to pass any climate change bill, have distanced themselves from any support in the run-up to 2010’s mid-term elections.

But what happens in Washington may just stay in Washington. The actions that are taking place in the state capitals around the country have proven just as, if not more, effective.

More Americans would rather tax carbon emissions that cap and trade them. (image: blog.lib.umn.edu)

The Houston Chronicle’s business blog, NewsWatch, reports that more Americans are for a carbon tax than support cap and trade. That conclusion comes from a poll conducted on behalf of the U.S. Climate Task Force and non-profit group Future 500, which shows that 58 percent of voters support a carbon tax while 27 percent support cap and trade.

So what does that mean? Well, ironically—or perhaps tellingly—as NewsWatch blogger Tom Fowler points out, most Americans may not have understood what they were voting on since, he says, a new survey reveals that one in four Americans does not know what cap and trade even is. So which is better? Well the debate continues and, in fact, Yale’s School of Forestry & Environmental Studies put that question to a number of experts and ran their opinions. Among those who support cap and trade are President Obama and certain business leaders. Recently, for example, the CEO of New Jersey’s Public Service Enterprise Group gave his argument for cap-and-trade.

U.S. utility company looks to a future of green-er power generation. (image: dividend.com)

As evidence that the coal industry is burning its final ember, Progress Energy Inc. announced that it will shut down eleven coal-fired power plants by 2017, the New York Times reported on Tuesday. The utility company plans to replace the plants, which constitute 30 percent of its North Carolina coal operations, with gas-burning units, as part of an ambitious move toward cleaner energy.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Progress’s decision to abandon coal-generated power reflects a broader trend among utility companies. Duke Energy, for example, has said that by 2020 it will shut down eighteen coal plants, which annually produce 1,600 megawatts of electricity, replacing most of them with gas-burning facilities. It is hoped that gas will act as a “bridge fuel” until such a time as nuclear power and renewable energy become the primary sources of affordable, low-carbon electricity. For Progress Energy, natural gas is a short-term solution; the company has already begun plans to build two nuclear power plants within the next decade, at an estimated cost of $17 billion.

Ditching coal is a wise economic decision. Big utility companies like Progress Energy are betting not only that natural gas prices will stay relatively low, but that the industry will soon face stricter regulations on carbon emissions. If a cap and trade system is put into effect, it may become too expensive for energy providers to purchase the emission allowances required to continue burning coal. Progress Energy chief executive Bill Johnson has said that the coal-to-gas strategy will reduce the company’s carbon emissions significantly, though not enough to reach the current goal set by President Obama, who, prior to the Copenhagen climate conference, has called for a cut of 17 percent by 2020. This suggests that while Copenhagen may not lead to an international treaty, it has already begun informing the outlooks of many large utility providers.

By reducing its carbon output before a federal regulatory system has been put in place, Progress Energy is taking a risk. When Congress finally imposes a limit on carbon emissions, it will likely come in the form of percentage reductions based on a baseline year. Thus, by closing coal plants now, Progress Energy is effectively cutting its baseline prematurely (that is, when the government isn’t paying attention), meaning that it may have to reduce emissions even further in the future. “We need to do the right thing, regardless of that, and this is the right thing,” Johnson said. If percentage reductions are eventually imposed, “we’d be making a strong argument, ‘Don’t penalize us for doing the right thing.’”

In the meantime, Progress Energy will continue to operate three coal-fired plants in North Carolina, which annually produce 3,542 megawatts of electricity. To help make these plants cleaner, the company has invested more than $2 billion in pollution-control equipment, which helps curb nitrogen-oxide and sulfur-dioxide emissions, but does little to control carbon dioxide, which is regarded as the leading greenhouse gas. This is presumably a quick fix until more gas-burning units can be built; gas is generally thought to be cleaner than coal, though exactly how much cleaner is a matter for debate.

Cap and trade would likely increases Americans’ electric bills, but could also lead to dividend checks from utilities to consumers. (image: t. magnum via flickr.com)

Experts believe that Americans’ day-to-day lives will not change noticeably as the U.S. works toward President Obama’s recently announced goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by one-sixth, an Associated Press article reported on Friday. At the U.N.-sponsored climate change summit next week in Copenhagen, the White House will commit the U.S. to a goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 to about 17 percent below 2005 levels. According to the Department of Energy, this goal would bring emissions to about 12.5 percent below 2008 levels. The president also set a goal of reducing emissions by 83 percent by 2050, which is what European countries want.

Experts say that although such cuts may mean higher energy bills, they might also mean fewer deaths from air pollution and a utility dividend check at the end of the year. But mostly, they say, the changes will be so small that the general public will not even notice.

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton, likened the changes that would occur under Obama’s 2020 target with the changes in refrigerators over the past 30 years. Without consumers noticing, refrigerators have become about three times more energy efficient. Oppenheimer told the AP that the only time people really notice is when they buy a refrigerator, because they are more expensive, or when they notice the savings on their utility bill.

Other possible effects of carbon-reduction plans Oppenheimer mentioned included cars made of different materials, with bigger cars becoming more costly while smaller cars may be built to be more comfortable.

On Nov. 25, public health officials from all over the world released studies which found that reducing greenhouse gas emissions according to the goals outlined by President Obama could save millions of lives by reducing air pollution. Study investigators and health officials said that cutting carbon dioxide pollution and encouraging more exercise and less meat consumption to reduce emissions would reduce worldwide deaths from heart and lung diseases.

As stated in the AP article, the latest proposal for the cap and trade system of pollution credits involves auctioning off the right to pollute, with the proceeds returned to consumers. John Reilly, associate director of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said that although consumers would pay more in monthly utility bills, they could then receive refund checks from the utilities at the end of the year as utilities begin to reduce their emissions. These refund checks would offset an increase in prices.

The discussion in the AP article of the costs of and lifestyle changes brought about by climate change legislation is just the latest development in a heated debate about the true cost to consumers and industry of a cap and trade system. The cap and trade provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill, and its impact on both refiners and consumers alike, are particularly controversial.

The size of the cap and trade burden shouldered by the average American depends on who you ask. On Sept. 10, HeatingOil.com’s Gregg Gethard reported that the NYU Law School Institute for Policy Integrity released a study that found the benefits of cap and trade “far outweigh” its costs, and Steven Zweig wrote on Sept. 23 that cost estimates for the Waxman-Markey cap and trade program are “all over the map,” and range anywhere from $968 to $1,936 per family per year. However, Zweig also said that although the benefits of Waxman-Markey’s cap and trade program are global, the costs are local. If cap and trade legislation results in $1.5 trillion in benefits, as calculated in the NYU study, these benefits will be distributed among the world’s 6 billion people. Unfortunately, the $660 billion in costs are paid by the Untied State’s 300 million people. In that model, each American would accrue $2,200 in costs, but receive only $250 in benefits.

Obama at the G-20 Summit. (image: dailyadvance.com)

Download
PDF version

When President Barack Obama spoke in front of the United Nations global warming summit and promised to “work with my colleagues at the G-20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge,” his proposal was alternately applauded and condemned. “It’s a great idea,” said Frank O’Donnell, the president of Clean Air Watch. “Wrong-headed,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute.

Observers of the politics of climate change are not surprised by such starkly opposed points of view. The confluence of the UN Summit on Climate Change (September 22), the G-20 Pittsburgh Summit (September 24–25), and the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (December 7–18) has made late 2009 a pivotal moment for the international community to shape environmental and energy policy, and both environmental groups and the fossil fuel industry have been preparing for it.

Global actors like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the International Energy Agency (IEA) have all chosen to weigh in on climate change at this moment. It all builds to the Copenhagen conference in December, which now appears to be the precursor to an informal agreement on emissions reductions goals rather than a legally binding treaty.

While no mainstream voices bother to deny the powerful effect that greenhouse gas emissions have on climate change, the policy debates over the best means of reducing greenhouse gas are vigorous. Cap and trade has garnered the most attention out of the policy tools aimed at combating emissions, especially in the United States since the Waxman-Markey bill passed the House in June and the Senate debates its own cap and trade proposal. But the biggest incentive for emitters may not be the absence of a limit—it may be that the government subsidizes those emissions.

Illustration of carbon cap-and-trade. (image: granitegeek.org)

On Sunday, the Washington Post published an opinion piece by Ralph Izzo, chief executive of New Jersey’s Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), in which he offered his support for a cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse emissions. Although many energy corporations are hesitant to throw their support behind cap-and-trade and climate legislation, Izzo pleads for Congress to pass a strong climate bill. While admitting that current climate change legislation requires changes Izzo asserts that the most important thing to do right now is to put a price on carbon via cap-and-trade. According to Izzo, the benefits of implementing a cap-and-trade system far outweigh the estimated costs of such a program.

Aside from the environmental benefits of limiting global warming, Izzo argues that Congressional approval of climate change legislation will allow the United States to keep up with the countries of Europe and Asia that have already made great strides in developing and implementing alternative energy sources. Furthermore, Izzo asserts that placing prices on carbon is the first step to making the United States less dependent on foreign energy and will promote the creation of green industries and jobs. Perhaps most important, Izzo notes that cap-and-trade should be thought of as “cap-and-innovate” as cap-and trade “will give companies an economic foundation for investments in energy efficiency and clean energy, unleashing the innovation that only a well-functioning market can provide.”

It should be noted that PSEG could stand to gain from cap-and-trade as nearly half of their power derives from nuclear energy. As previously reported by HeatingOil.com, nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide or contribute to global warming. Therefore, if cap-and-trade does emerge, PSEG could profit from selling the carbon credits it does not use as a result of its nuclear energy generation.

Recently Democrats have used nuclear energy in an attempt to gain Republican support for cap-and-trade as many prominent Republicans such as John McCain, Lamar Alexander, and Lindsey Graham are supportive of increased use of nuclear power. Despite such compromises however, Republicans, like Big Oil, continue to oppose any emissions-reduction legislation.

One oil corporation that is not supportive of cap-and-trade regulation is Sunoco. On November 19 HeatingOil.com reported that Sunoco CEO Lynn Elsenhan complained that the American Clean Energy and Security Act sponsored by Representatives Edward Markey and Henry Waxman “did not establish a level playing field and clearly picked US oil refiners as ‘losers.’” Speaking directly to cap-and-trade, Elsenhan asserts that “asking US refiners to be responsible for their customers’ emissions puts them at ‘great peril.’”

While it remains to be seen whether or not a cap-and-trade system will be successful (if it is ever established), the current climate of debate surrounding carbon emissions suggests that Ralph Izzo is correct to note that no one “will be completely satisfied with the final legislation.”