I read this naively, hoping that there would be an introduction of carbon pricing:
Senate Democratic leaders on Tuesday plan to unveil a measure intended to signal their full-throated support of President Obama’s aggressive climate change agenda to 2016 voters and to the rest of the world.
The Democrats hope that the bill, sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell, of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee, will demonstrate a new unity for the party on energy and climate change, and define Democrats’ approach to global warming policy in the coming years.
The measure would establish as United States policy a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2 percent each year through 2025 — a cut even larger than the target set by the Obama administration. ...
But the Democratic measure lacks the one policy that most experts say is essential for addressing planet-warming pollution: a price, or tax, on carbon. The idea is to make it more expensive to burn fossil fuels and to drive the market toward energy such as wind and solar. ...
The Cantwell bill would direct the United States to use its leadership to secure commitments from other countries to cut emissions. The measure would require electric utilities to increase energy efficiency by 20 percent from current levels by 2030. It would also extend tax credits for electric utilities that use wind and solar power, increase spending on research into energy-efficient trucks and factories, and enact policies that would make it cheaper for consumers to invest in their own solar power.
via www.nytimes.com
Translation:
- "require electric utilities to increase energy efficiency" = command and control
- "extend tax credits" = subsidy
- "make it cheaper for consumers" = subsidy
- "increase spending on research" = subsidy
The combination is surely to be more costly, i.e., less efficient, than carbon pricing (i.e., a carbon tax or cap and trade).
