What You Need To Know About The Climate Bill

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - What You Need To Know About The Climate Bill stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 06-27-09 09:07 PM   |   Updated: 07-28-09 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Climate Change Bill

(AP) Cap-and-trade? Offsets? Pollution credits? The climate bill passed Friday by the House tackles global warming with new limits on pollution and a market-based approach to encourage more environmentally friendly business practices. But what exactly do the proposed rules mean, and how would they work?

Some questions and answers about the bill:

Q: What's the purpose of this legislation?

A: To reduce the gases linked to global warming and to force sources for power to shift away from fossil fuels, which when burned, release heat-trapping gases, and toward cleaner sources of energy such as wind, solar and geothermal.

Q: How does the bill accomplish this?

A: By placing the first national limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases from major sources like power plants, refineries and factories. This limit effectively puts a price on the pollution, raising the cost for companies to continue to use fuels and electricity sources that contribute to global warming. This gives them an incentive to seek cleaner alternatives.

Q: Is this the "cap-and-trade" idea that has been in the news?

A: Yes. The first step in a cap-and-trade program sets a limit on the amount of gases that can be released into the atmosphere. That is the cap. Companies with facilities that are covered by the cap will then receive permits for their share of the pollution, an annual pollution allowance. This bill initially would give the bulk of the permits away for free to help ease costs, but they still would have value because there would be a limited supply. Companies that do not get a big enough allowance to cover their pollution would either have to find ways to reduce it, which can be expensive, or buy additional permits from companies that have reduced pollution enough to have allowances left over. That is the trade. Companies typically would pick the cheaper option: reducing pollution or buying permits. They also have a third choice: They can invest in pollution reductions made elsewhere, such as farms that capture methane or plant trees. These are known as offsets.

Story continues below
advertisement

Q: So the idea is to try to reduce the overall level of pollution, regardless of whether, say, a particular factory reduces emissions?

A: That is true in the beginning. But as the cap gets lower and lower, reaching an 83 percent reduction by 2050, eventually all polluters will have to reduce. It is merely a question of when. For instance, it will be very tough for coal plants to reduce emissions at the outset of the program because the technology to capture and store carbon dioxide is not yet commercially available. It probably is 10 to 20 years away. So they will be buying offsets and buying allowances from other entities that will have an easier time.

Q: Do most environmentalists support this approach?

A: Most do, at least broadly. Cap-and-trade has had success. Since 1990, the United States has had a cap-and-trade program for sulfur dioxide, the main culprit in acid rain. Democrats have had to make a lot of concessions to win votes for the current bill from lawmakers from coal, oil and farm states. Some liberal environmentalists think these concessions weaken the bill. For instance, the bill's sponsors have had to lower the cap -- it originally called for a 20 percent cut by 2020 -- to 17 percent. Research suggests that much deeper cuts will be needed globally to avert the most serious consequences of global warming.

Q: Who opposes this approach, and why?

A: Republicans, some farm groups, some environmentalists, the oil industry, which feels it has received too few free permits, and some moderate Democrats. They all worry about the cost and the loss of jobs if industries move to countries that do not have controls on greenhouse gases. The bill has provisions to prevent this, but there are questions whether they will work. Republicans call the bill a national energy tax on every American family. This is because, as industries spend money to reduce pollution or buy credits, they will pass on that cost to consumers, the people who turn on the lights or pump gas in their cars. Recent analyses by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office show that the new rules eventually will cost the average household an extra $175 a year.

Q: Under the bill, what will happen to companies that do not follow the rules?

A: If they exceed their limit, they will have to pay a fine equal to twice the cap-and-trade price for each ton of pollution over the limit.

Q: Other than costs potentially being passed along to consumers, will this affect most Americans' day-to-day lives?

A: It fundamentally will change how we use, produce and consume energy, ending the country's love affair with big gas-guzzling cars and its insatiable appetite for cheap electricity. This bill will put smaller, more efficient cars on the road, swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panels, and transform the appliances you can buy for your home.

Q: How quickly will we notice these changes?

A: Some will occur more quickly than others. For instance, measures to boost energy efficiency in buildings and appliances are the low-hanging fruit that does not require major infrastructure changes or new technologies. Other changes are decades off and probably will come when the cap gets more stringent and permits get more expensive. For instance, the country can build more wind and more solar panels, but currently it lacks the transmission lines to move the energy they generate to population centers. As for cars: While more efficient models are a near-term reality, it will take a while to change out the fleet. Some people will continue driving 10-year-old gas guzzlers.

Q: What are the chances this bill will become law?

A: Both the Obama administration and Democrats want this bill passed by the end of the year, when negotiations for a new international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases get under way in Copenhagen. Even as Democrats hold the majority in Congress, it will not be easy to get this enacted. Many moderate Democrats from rural states and conservative districts are worried about the costs and complexity of the legislation when the economy is already weak. Very few Republicans, if any, are expected to support the bill. Approval of a climate bill in the Senate has been viewed as a long shot. Parts of the bill may need to be changed to secure approval in the Senate.

Q: Why is it so important to tackle global warming anyway?

A: Left untended, scientists say, global warming will cause sea levels to rise, increase storms and worsen air pollution. For these reasons, the Environmental Protection Agency recently concluded that six greenhouse gases pose dangers to human health and welfare. And politically, without U.S. action, developing countries like China probably will not agree to mandatory pollution limits.

(AP) Cap-and-trade? Offsets? Pollution credits? The climate bill passed Friday by the House tackles global warming with new limits on pollution and a market-based approach to encourage more environmen...
(AP) Cap-and-trade? Offsets? Pollution credits? The climate bill passed Friday by the House tackles global warming with new limits on pollution and a market-based approach to encourage more environmen...
Filed by Nick Sabloff  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
93
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: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- RomeoMD25 I'm a Fan of RomeoMD25 50 fans permalink

For 22 years, from 1976 to 1998, carbon dioxide level and average earth temperature both increased. This resulted in a scary Hollywood movie and world wide global warming hysteria. Group-think developed in the climate science community where peer-review bias led to de facto censorship and a paucity of published studies that objectively investigate the extent to which human-produced carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. It has been over nine years now and atmospheric carbon dioxide level has continued to increase but temperature has gone down. Apparently no one did any real research before or they would have discovered that 440 mya the planet plunged into the Andean-Saharan ice age when atmospheric carbon dioxide was over ten times the present level . With a little further real research they would have discovered that, in the current ice age, temperature trends have changed direction at many different temperature levels. This could not occur if there was positive feedback. They might have also noticed that temperatures went up and down hundreds of years before the carbon dioxide level. The forced conclusion from all this is that non-condensing greenhouse gas, and therefore human activity, has no significant influence on global temperature. The movie, “Six Degrees Could Change the World” is another example of media exploiting a hoodwinked public to sell advertising. They need to show it right away because, as the planet temperature continues to drop, it will look more and more foolish.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:28 AM on 07/03/2009
- Lorianne I'm a Fan of Lorianne 57 fans permalink
photo

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1171-Carbon-Credits-A-Scam.html

"We're 1/15th of the population in question and nearly all of the rest of the people involved are going to dramatically increase their per-capita CO2 output whether we like it or not.

Herein lies the problem: While we emit more CO2 per-capita than anyone else today, we won't be emitting the most CO2 for very long on an aggregate basis.

To actually stop the increase in CO2 emissions we would have to find some way to compel the Asians and Africans to not increase their CO2 emissions.

But all possible means for them to improve their standard of living inherently involve significant and even dramatic increases in CO2 emissions per-capita.

The math is simple: Within a few years China will emit more CO2 than we will. A few years after that both Africa and India will surpass the United States. None of these regions will agree to stop emitting CO2 because to do so is to agree to keep their people perpetually poor and agrarian while we enjoy the fruits of a westernized, industrialized economy."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 AM on 06/30/2009
- expired I'm a Fan of expired 22 fans permalink

Dear MoveOn member,
The U.S. House passed a huge energy bill Friday. Lots of good people are applauding the passage of this legislation. But here's the ugly truth:

Big Oil and Coal lobbyists, working in cahoots with some conservative Blue Dog Democrats, weakened the bill terribly—it now falls far short of President Obama's campaign vision to transition America's economy to clean energy and create millions of new jobs.

In fact, the bill repeals a key part of the Clean Air Act and doesn't do nearly enough to shift America to renewable energy—so instead of a boom in solar and wind, the bill locks us into dirty coal power for another generation.1

Working with progressive champions in the House, we were able to achieve modest gains at the eleventh hour (see details below). But saving the Clean Air Act and fixing other problems with the bill as the fight moves to the Senate will require a massive grassroots outcry.

So we have a decision to make: Should MoveOn launch a full-court press to fix the bill, and turn up the heat on senators who might be tempted to side with Big Oil and Coal?

Click to vote:

"Yes. Let's fight to save the Clean Air Act and fix the energy bill."
"No. I don't think we should do that." (And tell us why.)
We'll go forward if 2/3 of us who vote think it makes sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 06/29/2009

This cap and trade didnt work in Europee. Obama is run by thr Banksters he must be protested
every appearance.
Legalize hemp so we have an alternative.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 AM on 06/29/2009

Cap n Trade: a get rich quick scheme brought to you by the brightest guys in the room?

Enron anyone? Carbon credits traded in open markets. Get rich scheme by the BankSTA's.
from the same people who brought you Enron(tm) Weather Futures. Carbon derivatives.
New Bubbles, New Horizons. Scam? or the gears of capitalism turning. Selling the
carbon commodities and derivatives.

$$ Obama $$ = friend of the gangsta BANKsters

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:24 AM on 06/29/2009
- SangZe I'm a Fan of SangZe 33 fans permalink

Borrow and waste at its best.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:29 AM on 06/29/2009
photo

I read some of the bill - it reeks!
One point that leaped out at me was the federal government usurping power over building codes and threatening a loss of federal money to the states if they don't comply. I think some in Washington need to review the constitution and its limits on federal authority (see the tenth ammendment of the BILL OF RIGHTS). I am concerned that too many in Washington do not take their oaths of office seriously - it may be our undoing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:03 AM on 06/29/2009
- rf-hawaii I'm a Fan of rf-hawaii 18 fans permalink

Under the circumstances that extraordinary reach seems justified. Otherwise, opponents of this action will go hog-wild circumventing it at the state level. Republicans and business seem determined to exert their 'right' to pollute.

I hope there aren't too many loopholes left unattended.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 06/29/2009
- blimie I'm a Fan of blimie 13 fans permalink

The media is uselss. This is one of the biggest tax increases coming and all we hear about are the Iran demonstrations. This is a 1200 page bill, 300 pages tacked on the last minute. This bill has not been examined and presented to the public. Already we are hearing, compainies can cheat the system and continue to pollute and get credits. Al Gore will make a huge profit from this bill as chairman of a "green" investment company. This will be as effective as the stimulus bill and it will be the taxpay who pays the price.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 AM on 06/29/2009
- rf-hawaii I'm a Fan of rf-hawaii 18 fans permalink

Nice to see Al winning something. Especially for being on the right side of saving the Earth, no less.

A great example for the rest of us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:17 PM on 06/29/2009

I'm sure there are a lot of nuances to the bill we have yet to understand. Granted, my knowledge on the science behind the fight against global warming is limited at best, and my understanding on the intricate interplay that occurs between political powers struggling for control is laughable, but consider another large problem we have yet to see or at least approach.

At last count, how many pages was this Climate Change bill? 1100? Let's just take straight mathematics for a moment and consider how long it would take to read 1100 pages worth of text. Three or four days for me and I read pretty quickly. How many of the politicians who passed, reject, or abstained on this bill actually read all 1100 pages of text? I doubt any of them. What I take from all of this, is frankly our political and governmental machine is the first thing that needs to be overhauled. When we have politicians passing or killing bills left and right without knowing exactly what their actions entail, we are seeing the death of educated decision making.

This is just my opinion of course. How can we exact change without the government infrastructure vital to supporting reform? I feel the first step towards exacting real change, needs to come from keeping our representatives accountable for their decisions instead of allowing them to pursue the idealism inherent in the government-level decision making that's quickly consuming America.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 PM on 06/28/2009
- rf-hawaii I'm a Fan of rf-hawaii 18 fans permalink

That's an interesting complaint at first blush. Bill too big to even read. Wow.

What takes one person 4 days can be done by 4 people in one day. What's wrong with that?

Do your representatives work alone?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:23 PM on 06/29/2009
- rf-hawaii I'm a Fan of rf-hawaii 18 fans permalink

Like many Republican complaints, this one is kind of silly.

To claim the bill was never read because one person couldn't read it in time is just dumb.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:26 PM on 06/29/2009
- Roguer I'm a Fan of Roguer 25 fans permalink
photo

No one seems to mention where all the agents and regulators are going to come from?... EPA is already understaffed and largely unconcerned about local issues... I have been trying for months to find someone to talk to about a subdivision going over a major cave system and running its storm water directly into the caves.

I guess that would be the job creation part of the bill. No one has mentioned how all the additional regulators, needed to oversee the regulations in the bill, are going to be paid for. Now we will have a pollution Czar? How are those other Czars working out so far? We will have more Czars than the whole Romanov line.

Never mind... taxes and deficit spending.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 06/28/2009
- cavegal I'm a Fan of cavegal 160 fans permalink
photo

Two new agencies are to be created under the guidance of the EPA. Here is a link to the CBO's cost estimate for the whole bill. It seems to primarily focus on cap & trade.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10262/hr2454.pdf

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:25 AM on 06/29/2009
- Roguer I'm a Fan of Roguer 25 fans permalink
photo

Thanks, I will read it tonight. I have a ten o'clock meeting with the county commission to fight said subdivision and a shoestring annexation. Actually you might find it interesting.

www.organcavecommunity.com

Thanks again, your posts have been intelligent and informative.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 AM on 06/29/2009

I watched C-span while parts of the amendment were being read. Hopefully none of you ever want to buy or sell a home. To sell your home it will have to be brought up to federal standards (CA standards). All new homes will have to be built to those standards. Think how much more you will be paying for your home. All property appraisers will have to be trained to apprase based on the new standards. And if it's too expensive to update your house to sell it, don't worry, you can't rent it either until it meets new standards. I can hardly wait until the hippies in Vermont, living in their old farmhouses who believe in this bill, decide to sell.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 PM on 06/28/2009
- cavegal I'm a Fan of cavegal 160 fans permalink
photo

The city of Austin just passed a new law that requires an energy efficiency inspection on any home that is over 5 years old that is to be sold. It was the first city in the country to do so. To be perfectly honest I am not opposed to it because it does focus on saving energy. We have load issue problems here occasionally. I do believe that during a sale though much can be negotiated in terms of points and who pays for what prior to closing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 AM on 06/29/2009
- Solsister I'm a Fan of Solsister 3 fans permalink

In many cases, the payback period (the time it takes to regain the cost of something) is just a few years for energy efficiency upgrades to a home. It will save the homeowner money in the long run. Unfortunately, most people don't think in terms of the long run. This measure will help them learn the benefits of doing so.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:56 PM on 06/29/2009
photo

The supporters of the Cap & Trade bill passed this Friday past reflect economic illiteracy, a quasi-religeous belief in AGW, and a stubborn refusal to obectively examine real world results of cap and trade legislation in other countries, as well as the assumptions of the AGW hoax.

The refusal to acknowledge the job killing potential of this bill, as well as the existing and foreseeable efficiencies of "green energy" are similar to children demanding more candy, refusing to brush their teeth, and all the while yelling that their parents are "fear mongers" for telling them their teeth will rot out if they continue on their current trajectory.

The measure of the truth is that it will happen whether anyone believes it or not.

I wish all supporters of the Cap & Trade lesgislation god speed to the third world economy this legislation will engender, should the Senate be as irresponsible as the House.

If that does happen, you will learn as the children mentioned above, that teeth are not easily replaced, and that you can't repeal the laws of economics or science despite your toothless myopic rants.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 PM on 06/28/2009

Can anyone tell me what is the outcome of this "Climate Bill" other than higher taxes and the destruction of even more manufacturing jobs? I'm still waiting for the technology that will be able to predict a 5 day forecast before I will believe a 50 year prediction.

If this passes can supporters tell me what they can guarentee for changes in the climate, weather patterns and temps?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:24 PM on 06/28/2009

It will also make the US economy 2nd class overnight. China is instantly the new super-economy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 PM on 06/28/2009
- Pquilson I'm a Fan of Pquilson 9 fans permalink

I would still like to know the "proper" levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the "proper" average global temperature. If we are to pay to reach these levels, I would at least like to know when they are achieved.
I do believe that this bill has more to do with tax revenue to pay for other social programs than it has to do with climate and pollution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:46 AM on 06/29/2009
- dc2nm I'm a Fan of dc2nm 16 fans permalink

The real destruction of our economy is the rising cost of oil and our dependence on it. I worked in new product dev for as large utility a decade ago...their economist had models predicting a major depression should the cost of oil rise to $5/gal since every aspect of our economy is effected.

Since corporations seem to be too short-sighted to rescue themselves from their own demise, the government needs to step in to nudge them in the right direction.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 AM on 06/29/2009
- Roguer I'm a Fan of Roguer 25 fans permalink
photo

Note to all those thinking this will do anything to the coal industry in WV... most of the forested lands in the state are either owned by the coal companies (meaning they get offsets for what they mine) or mead westvaco... (yup, the paper company)...

Ironic that global warming is being campaigned for by a man that lives with only his wife in a 20 room (not including the 8 bathrooms) 10,000 sq. ft. mansion.

I am sorry but I am not ever impressed with a government solution to a problem... Dem or Rep. Or should we talk about AM-Track or the postal service. We can not print money to solve our economic problems. This has been tried many times before (Post WW1 Germany). The American consumer has to change. In broad terms... stop being a consumer and become a producer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:35 PM on 06/28/2009
- kevsters I'm a Fan of kevsters 5 fans permalink

This article is important, because there are people out there who will do anything to kill this legislation.

Watch this clip of Chuck Grassley not being completely honest about CO2 emissions.

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=1971

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 PM on 06/28/2009

It should be killed. It's horrendous.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:05 PM on 06/28/2009
Page: 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