Federal legislators should look to the states for some key lessons on cap-and-trade.
An explanation of how WRI conducts analysis of climate and energy proposals before the US Congress.
I was surprised to learn from Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s recent piece in Foreign Policy that WRI has magical powers.
How industry has learned to live with (and perhaps even love) cap-and-trade in Europe.
This document provides a detailed summary of the greenhouse gas (GHG) offset provisions in the Clean Energy Partnerships Act of 2009 (S.2729), which was introduced as a bill by Senators Stabenow, Baucus, Klobuchar, Brown, Begich and Harkin on November 5, 2009.
Has cap-and-trade in Europe worked? WRI’s Senior Fellow Jill Duggan, who helped implement the EU trading scheme, sorts the myths from reality.
Payments for ecosystem services are becoming an increasingly important part of the U.S. business and regulatory landscape. As programs that provide payments for ecosystem services grow, policy makers will need to determine how these various payments should interact with each other.
Climate change is a global issue that requires action from all countries. As the U.S. Congress develops a domestic climate and energy package, the United States seeks assurance that other countries will also act and a means to track the progress of commitments by verifying that actions have been implemented.
S.1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA) also known as the Kerry Boxer bill , provides a number of important provisions that will ensure that offsets used in the U.S. cap-and-trade program represent real, additional, measurable and verified greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions.
In deciphering U.S. climate policy, it is important to understand the limitations of the president’s powers and the distinct processes that all legislation follows in the two chambers of the United States Congress.