Over-Under | Coyote Blog

...after putting this huge effective tax on refiners, which will also in some cases force refiners to shut down capacity and produce less fuel, how long will it be before a politician starts to demagogue oil companies for rising gasoline prices and/or fuel shortages?

This is at the end of the day why Congress wanted cap-and-trade rather than a carbon tax. By putting the tax on unsympathetic targets like oil companies, Congress and Obama can pretend that inevitable consumer price increases are the oil companies greedy fault, and not related to the actions in Washington.

Picking Winners | Coyote Blog

...No, the reason for this is purely political — every representative has an electric utility in their district lobbying and paying campaign contributions, but few have organized lobbies of automobile drivers. And so, rather than pushing for fuel shifts from coal to gas or nuclear in power generation, this bill will primarily achieve its meager results from making it more expensive for people to drive.

There's Still a Long Road Ahead for U.S. Climate Legislation No Matter What Happens to the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill - Environmental Capital - WSJ

Amid all the arguing, though, here’s one fact that no one disputes: No matter what happens today, this bill is a long way from becoming law.

That’s because the Senate isn’t anywhere close to passing a climate-change bill—and has scuttled attempts to speed up the process. The top Republican on the Senate environment committee, noted global warming skeptic James Inhofe, has said flatly that the Senate version of the bill won’t pass. “It’s just not going to happen,” the Oklahoma Republican said recently.

The Senate legislation’s future may depend in part on what happens in the House today—not just whether the House version passes, but by how much. Earlier this year, most experts expected the bill to sail through the House without much difficulty, putting pressure on the Senate to act as well. Instead, today’s vote looks too close to call.

“Without a resounding House endorsement, I think the Senate is going to view this as too risky to take up in any significant way,” says Bill Durbin, head of carbon research for the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.