(A short break from my CO2 offset series, back to that later this week)
There's three interesting energy pieces in the WSJ today. If you get a chance to pick one up (I can't link to it), its worthwhile.
The cover story titled "In Climate Controversy, Industry Cedes Ground" talks about how companies and industries are coming to the conclusion that green house gas policy of some kind is coming, so might as well accept that and get into the conversation. It's worth reading because it highlights how small changes in policy can have big changes in how it effects different industries. Based on this you can expect some huge $$ flowing to Washington and to the 2008 candidates over the next couple of years.
The second is an op-ed piece by Vinod Khosla. In essence it proves the meta-point of the first article, as it is basically a request for $$ to be spent on his vision of green energy. He may have the best path forward, but I continue to believe that we need a portfolio approach to cover our massive energy usage, and Vinod's vision will just be one element of the portfolio.
Finally, Daniel Yergin has a nice piece on energy independence, and argues that what we really want is energy security. Worth checking out.
With the cap-and-trade debate about to launch into full gear, it's worth taking a second to point out that there is an often overlooked feature of these systems. In general, cap-and-trade systems involve handing handing out the credits which represent the right to pollute. Who do we give the most credits to? To those who've been polluting the most in the past! Check out Sky Trust for an alternative viewpoint. There's not much current discussion of it, but it's worth keeping in mind as this giant handout is debated.