Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Sen. Cantwell to Meet with Obama Wednesday

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is one of at least four Democratic senators who will brief President Obama on Wednesday morning about climate change legislation.  Her proposal, called the Clear Act, is one of the main proposals in play in the Senate.

In his BP speech last week, Obama said their needed to be a “national mission” to find alternative energy sources. However, as the NYT noted on its editorial page this morning,  Obama didn’t call for swift action on the House’s climate change bill, which the Senate is currently considering. As the NYT also noted, a troupe of senators is meeting with the president on Wednesday to sell him on the idea.

Cantwell, who chairs the Energy Subcommittee of Senate Energy and Natural Resources, is one of three senators who briefed Democratic caucus members last week. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) picked Cantwell to be part of the lobbying team that will sit down with the president.

Asked what Cantwell would tell the president, Cantwell’s office told PubliCola this morning:

Her message for the President will be the same one she’s been delivering to her Senate colleagues: the CLEAR Act offers a simple solution for climate legislation—weighing in at 39 pages compared to 1,500 pages or more for some of the other bills; it is the only Senate bill with Republican support (Susan Collins of Maine); it puts a predictable price on carbon, which we need to incentivize growth of clean-energy alternatives, but it keeps most Americans whole by paying dividends out of the funds raised in auctioning carbon shares; it steers clear of creating yet another speculative market that could create instability in the energy field—exactly the opposite of what we’re trying to achieve; it focuses … that is, on producers and importers of coal and oil, not users.

You can find the details on Sen. Cantwell’s CLEAR Act here, but the basic is this: As opposed to “cap & trade”—a system in which the government auctions off a limited number of carbon permits to fossil fuel producers, with the money going to the government (while polluters trade their permits in a separate carbon market), Cantwell’s “cap & dividend” would use the money to give rebates to utility customers, whose bills will certainly go up under the auction system.

Cantwell, along with her Republican co-sponsor, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), wrote an editorial about their bill in Friday’s Washington Post. Here’s a video explanation from her office.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIuI4fInZUA&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]

As we noted shortly after Sen. Cantwell first introduced her “Cap & Dividend” bill late last year, it got good press from The Economist, the smartest mag on anybody’s coffee table. In addition to Sen. John Kerry’s “cap & trade” bill, the NYT also gives Cantwell’s bill a nod today. However, both Grist and Sightline take issue with specific aspects of the bill.

Joining Cantwell at the White House briefing are Sens. Kerry (D-MA), Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), and perhaps Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut).




  • N8

    Yeah for Senator Cantwell, this is a really good idea!!

  • Eric de Place

    One clarification: “cap and dividend” is a species of “cap and trade,” it's not some other creature. To wit, Cantwell's bill puts a legal limit on carbon emissions (the cap); and it allows trading of carbon allowances on a secondary market (the trade).

    What's distinctive about Cantwell's version of cap and dividend is that it proposes to auction all of the allowances and then rebate 75% of the revenue directly to legal US residents on a per capita basis. (In some other forms of cap and trade, not all the allowances are auctioned, and/or some significant share of the revenue is spent on other things, such as renewable energy or energy efficiency or what have you.) It's interesting to note that the most recent flagship Senate bill — the Kerry-Lieberman bill — would actually behave, after 2035 at least, very much like Cantwell's cap and dividend bill: virtually all of the allowances are auctioned, and almost all the revenue is returned to households. In other words, her bill has already had a clear influence on Senate lawmaking.

    Eric de Place
    Sightline Institute

  • Josh Feit

    Thanks for the info Eric.

  • Rev

    Once again the government putting a boot on the neck of the private sector. This bill and others like it will do nothing to curb carbon emissions and is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. Since private companies are going to have to pay more to get their products to market, they are sure to pass along the increased costs to us. The “75% rebate paid directly to US residents” will be a drop in the bucket compared to the increased costs to consumers. It's good to see the statists are alive and well in Washington.

  • um, can we stop the oil first?

    nice opinion piece today in NYT — use conventionals to stop the oil leak.

    Yes, a twenty inch diameter pipe that goes 18000 feet below the oocean floor can be squished off by the shock waves of a tube of explosives placed nearby and set off….no, it won't create some kind of undersea crater opening up the reservoir….yes the navy knows how to do undersesa explosions…..no it does not use nukes….yes this cuts off the flow ofoil to bp, that's why they aren't pushing it…..no, this isn't the best idea we have….to stop it now…..

    it's the only idea.

    Could be worth (ahem) “exploring”……..

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Just picked up the book “Chill” by Peter Taylor on interlibrary loan at Covington.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chill-Reassessment-Glob…

    “Chill, A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory: Does Climate Change Mean the World is Cooling, and If So What Should We Do About It?”

  • N8

    From my point of view, two of the downfalls that many of the proposed forms of 'cap and trade' bills have involve granting credits to favored industries or companies in powerful congressional districts and major price drops for the right to carbon emissions during recessions which then decrease the incentive to cut emissions. Also, once the initial auction takes place, the owners of the environment that is being polluted get no more compensation, whereas with Cantwell's bill, the rights would be auctioned off for a set period of time after which a lesser amount of rights would be auctioned off again and another round of payouts made.

  • N8

    Currently private companies pollute public resources for free, in other words, we are currently redistributing the wealth of public resources to private individuals/companies. We must stop this redistribution of wealth and make those that are going to use public resources pay the fair market value for them.

  • AnotherPointOfView

    This is all based on a lie. Carbon (CO2) is not a pollutant, regardless who or how many times it is stated. The earth actually needs CO2. Think about it. We all exhale CO2. So the only way to reduce CO2 is to remove or at least significantly reduce all animal life on the planet, which in turn will kill all plant life because plants need to consume it. The whole concept is absurd on the face of it. And, how does buying “carbon credits” reduce pollution? Once the pollutant is released, the “damage” would have already been done. Perhaps BP should just buy a boatload of carbon credits and the gulf problem will be resolved.

    It will never cease to be amaze me at how so many just believe, without question the garbage government shovels. The actual “downfall” (N8) is that none of this is necessary.

    Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.
    –Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio address, October 26, 1939

  • A.S.

    Good question, I for one have the same question. Plant more trees! Follow the $$ to see who is actually profiting off “carbon credits” and gaining “government grants” I think many will be surprised at the wealth creation of a “few”. Capitalism at its best….only disquised very well.