Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Planet Panelists

Archive: February 28, 2010 - March 6, 2010

The proof is in the pudding

We have some pretty good intelligence on the climate bill being championed by Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham. Still, I am not going to play the speculation game.

By Pam Faggert | March 5, 2010; 12:00 PM ET | Comments (1)

Congress should do the right thing -- nothing

The same ethical advice for doctors also makes sense for Congress as it considers several pending global warming bills -- first do no harm.

By Ben Lieberman | March 5, 2010; 10:32 AM ET | Comments (19)

Recycle taxes with a carbon-based tax system

Since this debate began decades ago, the major alternative to cap-and-trade has been a carbon-based tax system, especially one in which the revenues are recycled to reduce other taxes.

By Robert J. Shapiro | March 5, 2010; 9:54 AM ET | Comments (19)

Establish decision-making foundation

The discussion of alternatives should begin with a new paradigm. For the past 20 years, the foundation for climate legislation has been projections of an impending catastrophe. What we have seen over that period of time is a climate which has not been a lot different than that existed over comparable periods since the end of the Little Ice Age

By William O'Keefe | March 5, 2010; 9:37 AM ET | Comments (2)

Give money back

What about, you know, giving the money back to the people.

By Bill McKibben | March 5, 2010; 9:33 AM ET | Comments (8)

Controls needed to protect consumer energy prices

An important addition to any new climate bill is a refund mechanism to protect lower and middle class families from increased energy prices. No matter what road Congress takes to control our greenhouse emissions, energy prices will rise to some extent. The costs businesses incur in their compliance of any new rules will be passed on to consumers.

By Richard L. Revesz | March 5, 2010; 9:30 AM ET | Comments (8)

It's a good idea for EPA to act

Since the EPA has no choice but to regulate greenhouse gases, and could come under serious legal fire if it does not, it is a good idea for EPA to act.

By Richard L. Revesz | March 1, 2010; 12:01 PM ET | Comments (0)

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company