House Panel Advances Global Warming Bill

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - House Panel Advances Global Warming Bill stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

WASHINGTON — Legislation imposing the first nationwide limits on the pollution blamed for global warming advanced in the House late Thursday, clearing a key committee despite strong Republican opposition.

The Energy and Commerce Committee approved the sweeping climate bill 33-25 after repeatedly turning back GOP attempts to kill or weaken the measure during four days of debate.

The panel's action increases the likelihood that the full House for the first time will address broad legislation to tackle climate change later this year. The Senate has yet to take up the issue.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the panel's chairman, said the bill represents "decisive and historic action" to increase America's energy security and deal with global warming. "When this bill is enacted into law, we will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our nation the world leader in clean energy jobs and technology, and cut global-warming pollution," said Waxman.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has promised to press for passage of climate legislation this year, but prospects remain uncertain, especially in the Senate. President Barack Obama has told Congress he also wants a bill this year, ahead of international climate talks in December.

The House bill requires factories, refineries and power plants to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and six other greenhouse gases by roughly 80 percent by mid-century and hasten the nation's energy shift away from fossil fuels by putting a price on carbon dioxide releases.

Only one Republican _ Rep. Mary Bono Mack of California _ crossed party lines in support of the legislation. Four Democrats voted against it. She said that while she had concerns about the bill, including its cost, the country can't wait "to make needed changes to our energy policy."

Waxman had vowed to get the 946-page bill out of his committee before Memorial Day. Pressure on lawmakers to leave for the holiday recess pushed the committee to wrap up late Thursday after considering more than 80 amendments.

Story continues below

"The American people are overwhelmingly calling for a new direction ... to take action in a way that changes forever our relationship with imported oil, with the loss of jobs overseas, with the pollution that is causing greenhouse gas warming on our planet," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a co-sponsor of the bill.

Republicans argued that the pollution cuts would lead to soaring energy prices and threaten economic growth by imposing new costs on energy-intensive industries already facing economic hardships.

"We don't want to put the economy in jeopardy," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the committee's ranking Republican. He offered an alternative that would have scrapped the cap on greenhouse gases and a requirement to produce more electricity from renewable sources. It was defeated 35-19.

Barton said he had "serious concern about the redirection of our energy policy in America."

"For the sake of our nation, I hope to some degree you are right. I'm afraid that you're not. We will see," Barton told Waxman minutes before the vote.

The legislation calls for the government to issue pollution allowances, or permits, to businesses that could be traded on the open market. The bill initially would give away 35 percent of the allowances to electric utilities to prevent higher energy costs from being passed on to consumers. The government also would sell 15 percent and use the money to provide direct relief to lower- and middle-income families.

To get the support of Democrats from coal and industrial states, Waxman had already agreed to give away significant emissions allowances to industries in their states, including the electric utilities, steel manufactures, automakers and refineries. The deal also lowered the bill's targets for renewable energy and required a smaller reduction by 2020 in the emissions blamed for global warming.

Democrats this week added language to create a clean energy bank to disperse grants for new forms of energy and inserted a "cash for clunkers" program that would provide rebates to consumers who turn in gas guzzling vehicles for more fuel-efficient cars.

Republicans said there were other ways to accomplish the same goals.

"I guess our argument on this is there is so much a better way to do this ... through innovation versus this big government mandate," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. "Believe in this next generation of Americans and you will be surprised how fast we can meet these goals without ... the largest energy tax in the history of the United States."

Environmentalists called the committee vote historic, even though some said they hoped the bill would be strengthened.

"The takeaway is that climate legislation is on a path to the president's desk," said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. "This bill is a breakthrough."

___

The bill is H.R. 2454.

___

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

House Energy and Commerce Committee: http://energycommerce.house.gov

WASHINGTON — Legislation imposing the first nationwide limits on the pollution blamed for global warming advanced in the House late Thursday, clearing a key committee despite strong Republican o...
WASHINGTON — Legislation imposing the first nationwide limits on the pollution blamed for global warming advanced in the House late Thursday, clearing a key committee despite strong Republican o...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
91
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
photo

I am fully in support of the passage of this bill, on one condition.

Starting one month after the regulations requiring trading/purchase of carbon credits kick in, every utility/energy company must include in each customers bill a line explicitly noting the increase in price of one months service due to "Carbon surcharge" right before the total.

As long as that transparency for consumers is included, lets do it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:04 AM on 05/22/2009

LOL, if you want to see riots . . . have the Government increase the price of all energy 100%.

I am with you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 AM on 05/22/2009
- SouPro I'm a Fan of SouPro 9 fans permalink
photo

While I agree in part. Our use of unclean power sources ultimately costs tax payers in the long run, and the price of which will increase over time (especially as some of those energy resources become more finite). The idea is to pay a bit more now so we pay less later.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 AM on 05/22/2009
- gino618 I'm a Fan of gino618 49 fans permalink

When asked a specific question about the bill itself during the process, Waxman was dumbfounded and admitted he didn't know exactly what was in it - only that they 'relied very heavily' on scientists to tell them what was right. So they listened to the IPCC Scientists (Some of whom now are recanting the 'consensus' notion - but won't listen to other equally qualified scientists who disagree.

There is no CONSENSUS - and these clowns like Waxman who put a bill up for vote which will greatly damage our economy even further don't even know what's in the bill themselves.

This is your government - the one you all voted for - the ones who can't read their own bills - the ones who hire a speed reader to do so on the floor (You've GOT to be kidding me) - the ones who lie - the ones who make promises to you and then give you the finger.

Hope and Change - aren't you thrilled?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 AM on 05/22/2009
- SouPro I'm a Fan of SouPro 9 fans permalink
photo

How will transitioning our economy to green technology hurt the economy? Changing from horseshoes to tires didn't kill the iron industry...

Irregardless of whether global warming exists, the benefits of a green and renewable technologies are self-apparent.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 AM on 05/22/2009

But what if we're wrong?? All we'll be left with is a clean planet and a variety of innovative new technologies made in the United States! How horrible that would be!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 AM on 05/22/2009
- jake1492 I'm a Fan of jake1492 14 fans permalink

"Irregardless of whether global warming exists, the benefits of a green and renewable technologies are self-apparent."

I'm afraid that is not true. There is benefit to green and renewable technologies only if there is a net positive benefit compared to the alternative, in this case the use of fossil fuels. If there is a negative net benefit, meaning there is greater cost (overal, in every sense) to get the same result, then a better analogy would be changing from tires to horseshoes.

It depends on the problem to be solved. There are a few different problems. (The possiblity of) global warming, dependence on foreign oil, dependence on a diminishing resource (oil), non-CO2 air pollution, and international balance of payments problems. All of these problems need to be solved. All of them except global warming and non-CO2 air pollution are (partially and temporarily) solvable with nuclear power, greater domestic production of oil and gas, (more completely, but still temporarily but less so) with coal and shale oil, and potentially with oceanic methane hydrates.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 AM on 05/22/2009
- WillWilson I'm a Fan of WillWilson 15 fans permalink
photo

For those who want to see some background reality, I've posted a graph of our energy use from various sources over the last two centuries (from the US DOE's 2006 Annual Energy Review) online at:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=116

I've also posted information showing the reality of global warming, and some consequences measured in other organisms:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=95

Plots showing increasing sea levels, too:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=125

If you simply want to deny reality, well, certainly it makes getting things done just that much harder for the rest of us, but it's a right that represents one of the great things about our country!

Will Wilson

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 AM on 05/22/2009

Thanks Will, how about telling us what this bill will do for all the above concerns . . .

Will the sea level go down? Give us a specific number.

Will the planet cool off? Give us a specific temp.

I'll wait for your response because you and I know this is nothing but another was to gain tax revenue and will have no effect on controlling our climate :)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 AM on 05/22/2009

Go Vikings!

The econazis are not even talking about "global warming" any more. They got a memo instructing them to use the term "climate change" since the global cooling of the last ten years has eliminated the warming of 20th century.

Have you ever seen a non white environmentalist on TV? Why is that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 AM on 05/22/2009

This bill (if it gets that far) will go down in flames because:

1) Even brain dead dems from the rust belt states understand that the passage of any so called "climate control" bill will have devastating consequences on their state economy

2) It based on Voodoo Science that the average 7th grader (even one educated in the public school system) can see it for the farce it is

3) Gore the hustler is pushing this for economic gains. Big Al has been calling in support of this legislation - A sure kiss of death. Thanks Al keep up the good work.

Wax man - the definition of silliness

4) Obama the magnificent is backing it - sorry but the blush is definitely off of the rose and even the Kool Aid drinkers are beginning to notice.

5) Wax man is one ugly S#B

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:20 AM on 05/22/2009

Your name-calling is very convincing. I see your point.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:10 AM on 05/22/2009

True. Since posting to this blog I've begun to take on the habit of name calling since it's a tack most good libs use. I will try better next time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 PM on 05/22/2009
photo

Stop Global Whining

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:02 AM on 05/22/2009
photo

But global warming is a fantasy. The Repubs told us so, so it must be true.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 AM on 05/22/2009
photo

And would appear they may have been right, temps are cooling now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:19 AM on 05/22/2009
- Gunwing I'm a Fan of Gunwing 5 fans permalink

What proof do you offer up as evidence? The fact that we had a 20% colder year last year? Year one year of cold wether and you Riech wingers claim that it's all over. Trust me in the town where I live the days are hotter then ever around here. Yesterday it was 86 in the + range! Our record at this time was only 72! We broke it this year!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 AM on 05/22/2009
- SK9 I'm a Fan of SK9 permalink

Controlling CO2 emissions will not 'cost jobs'. That is idiotic. Did emission controls on cars 'cost jobs' as we were promised? One could bring up a hundred other examples of regulations that did not 'cost jobs'. What costs (manufacturing) jobs is offshoring to low-wage countries. If we want to prevent that, we need to start at least talking about some industrial policy (hint: we are the only country on Earth without one).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:59 AM on 05/22/2009

The decimated buggy whip industry would take issue with those statements!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 AM on 05/22/2009
- SK9 I'm a Fan of SK9 permalink

'Weaken'? This bill is extremely weak as is. No carbon tax, and 85% of the cap and trade credits are to be given away, instead of auctioned. The US Congress is still not serious about reducing CO2 emissions, although a feeble start is better than nothing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:55 AM on 05/22/2009

The goal of this bill is to fund the massive expansion and the control of Govt. over every aspect of our lives what car we drive, how warm we keep our houses etc..etc

....And we don't need any new taxes no matter how much Corporate lobbys of Democratic party cry!
exxon mobile shareholders in 2007 paid the feds 58% of all profits...that's ALOT OF MONEY! what they do with all that money??? did it go to any productive use??? With the money taken from exxon mobile alone in 07 they could;ve built every road in Europe,Asia and Africa and cured World hunger! Why didn't they???

In my opinion and statin fact:

If the fascist Politically correct police-corprate socialist "left" New World Order -transnationalist....really wanted to "save the planet" they would give tax credits to industrys for going clean instead of taxing them for being industrious and for growing=expanding, global warming is a myth! the greatest faux- ever pulled on mankind and it will enslave him!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 AM on 05/22/2009
- chaifreak I'm a Fan of chaifreak 10 fans permalink

This is the same, tired rhetoric that the energy industry has been spouting for decades. Please join us in the 21st century.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:57 AM on 05/22/2009

Can anyone here tell me what the goal of this bill actually is?

We all know it will increase the price of anything manufactured in the USA, will result in job loss and much higher energy prices . . . . but will this allow us to control our climate? Will this allow us to control emissions or will the emissions just shift to countries with no law in place?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:33 AM on 05/22/2009
photo

shhhh,

thats the dirty little secret

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:36 AM on 05/22/2009
- impik I'm a Fan of impik 19 fans permalink
photo

There is no such thing as "climate change". It's all god's will. You don't believe me? Ask the Republicans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:53 AM on 05/22/2009

There is actually no debate on "climate change" because the Earth's climate is and always has been changing. . . it has been very hot and very cold on this planet before man . . . the real question is whether you believe man can do something never done before, control the climate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:35 AM on 05/22/2009
photo

yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaa

higher taxes due do barrys $11 trillion spending

hyperinflation due do barrys $11 trillion borrowing/printing

when barry signs c+t bill: estimates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.[2] Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050.

happy days are here again

GO barry

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:44 AM on 05/22/2009
- Photofarm I'm a Fan of Photofarm 21 fans permalink

Total idiots, this will do nothing to change the climate, and bankrupt the country, exporting jobs faster than a speeding bullet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:02 AM on 05/22/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 173 fans permalink

Great! Pass climate change legislation this year and then health care reform. Then we can concentrate on bringing the Bush criminals to justice!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 AM on 05/22/2009
- D-V-H I'm a Fan of D-V-H 453 fans permalink
photo

While innovation would be great I hardly see it happening unless there a compelling reason for polluters to do it. Until we make polluters pay the full societal cost of what they do, no meaningful change will happen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 AM on 05/22/2009

The polluters are the consumers. Factories, plants, etc. aren't in production just for the fun of it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 AM on 05/22/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect