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
92
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)
- RomeoMD25 I'm a Fan of RomeoMD25 51 fans permalink

Too much CO would poison the miners, too much methane would explode, and too much CO2 would suffocate them. Carbon monoxide is far more lethal than CO2.

The deeper into the ground the miners dug, the more dangerous it became, because these gases — which are heavier than air — have a tendency to accumulate at the bottoms of coal mines.

Lest you missed that, let me say it in a different way.

CO2 is heavier than air.!!

Isn’t CO2 supposed to be rising high into the sky and creating the greenhouse effect and therefore causing global warming? Isn’t CO2 supposed to be a thin layer of invisible gas lurking somewhere a hundred or so miles up in the sky, reflecting heat back onto our planet?

How in the world can CO2 be rising into the sky and creating the greenhouse effect if it’s heavier than air? Isn’t it more likely to be accumulating down around my feet?

**
If we can’t predict the weather a week out, why should we believe what climate models say about the next 100 years?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 PM on 06/28/2009

Following your logic, being one of the lightests gases in air, there would be no hydrogen in the lower layers of the atmosphere and all of it would rise to the top of the rest of the striated gases ranked by their molecular weight. Not only that, but for instance ethanol and water wouldn't mix in a glass either having different densities.

I understand the lay-man's eager attempt to explain science to the masses, but whatever your point is is not supported by CO2 not rising to the top and only accumulating in the bottom. Good try, though.

**
If he didn't even take high school science, why should we take RomeMD25's advice on global warming?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:01 PM on 06/28/2009
- Roguer I'm a Fan of Roguer 26 fans permalink
photo

Remembering back to my high school science...

Hydrogen due to its chemical make up does not exist as a free atom in the atmosphere.

Temperature inversion has much to due with layering of the atmosphere and if I remember correctly.­.. LA on windless hot days has problems with emissions (CO2 and other toxins) hovering close to the surface, thus, affecting air quality. This, I think, is accompanied by warnings to stay inside and avoid driving and using lawn mowers.

Could be wrong... been more years than I care to remember since high school Chemistry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:19 PM on 06/28/2009
- LunaPark I'm a Fan of LunaPark 15 fans permalink

Dennis Kucinich voted against the bill. Says it uses "Enron style accounting" and it gives huge tax payer subsidies to Coal producers. Yet another bill where mega corporations wrote the law that our representatives did not read and passed in the dead of night.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 06/28/2009
- research I'm a Fan of research 267 fans permalink

Kucinich voted against it, and more and more, that is becoming enough for me. Kucinich seems to always get it right. Kucinich is the leader Americans need to learn to love.

This bad bill favors coal over solar, nuclear over BioChar, Big business over citizens. It creates yet another bankster gambling market for the big polluters to game the system for billions more from the taxpayers.

Rooftop solar is the cheapest power you can buy at 3 cents per KWH over 30 years at 2$ per peak watt.

No grid upgrade needed, though lower cost grid connects and standardized grid connects and payment for user generated electric would help tremendously.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/10478
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research?action=profile

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:42 PM on 06/28/2009
- research I'm a Fan of research 267 fans permalink

Kucinich tried to fix it, but of course the conservatives DLC DINO's don't listen to him.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/10478

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 06/28/2009
- nogimmicks I'm a Fan of nogimmicks 28 fans permalink

This amounts to a gigantic energy tax for CONSUMERS (the producers will probably only gain money) The bill is Obama-style borrow and waste as Fed ordered and create new beaurocracy. What's needed is real policy changes to get rid of oil, gas and coal plants and replace them by the clean nuclear plants.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 PM on 06/28/2009
- Semaj51 I'm a Fan of Semaj51 4 fans permalink
photo

Do I know all I need to know about the Climate Bill? The answer sadly is NO. In fact I doubt that there are any in Congress today who actually knows all that written into this baill. First you have a 1,200 page bill which was quickly passed through for voting, and than a "late at night" addition of 300 more pages hours before the vote. This looks more and more like the stimulas bills which was shoved down the taxpayer's billfolds.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:20 PM on 06/28/2009
- leduck I'm a Fan of leduck 44 fans permalink
photo

we do not "produce energy"

that makes it sound almost like we "make" energy

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 AM on 06/28/2009

Nuclear energy produces energy by converting matter into energy. All other power plants convert one form of energy into another form, usually a more useful form.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 06/28/2009
photo

Without China and other industrialized countries doing something similar - this is just pi**ing in the wind while enriching "the Goracle", GE and Wall Street, etc.. Instead of punishing "evil" job creating business - the TAX's will be passed on and will help ensure a deeper recession and be hardest upon the poor. Giant ponzi scheme that makes Bernie look like a kindergartner.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 AM on 06/28/2009
- Lorianne I'm a Fan of Lorianne 60 fans permalink
photo

Net ‘greenhouse gasses’ will increase because strictly controlled US emissions will be replaced by 3rd world emissions as jobs, business and manufacturing goes elsewhere ... China, Vietnam, Mexico, India, Brazil, you name it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 PM on 06/28/2009
- dc2nm I'm a Fan of dc2nm 19 fans permalink

The US should eliminate all labor and environmental standards because third world countries don't have them.

That is pretty much your argument. And its pretty lame.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:53 AM on 06/29/2009
- dc2nm I'm a Fan of dc2nm 19 fans permalink

We don't follow China and third world countries.­..we lead. That is the American way. Rethugs want us to be weak followers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:55 AM on 06/29/2009
- Dennis60 I'm a Fan of Dennis60 19 fans permalink

This will never become law, and Pelosi and Obama know it. Nothing but a twisted political game to keep loonies on the left subjugated to the Democratic Party and ramp up the rhetoric against conservatives. A bunch of shameless hacks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 PM on 06/27/2009
- PaiaGirl I'm a Fan of PaiaGirl 116 fans permalink
photo

Spoken like a loyal right wing loony

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 AM on 06/28/2009

His view is not a right wing view. It is a common sense view. If you actually looked into the fact that there are no exisiting technologies to even accomplish the goal, while still saddling the US economy and middle class with needless taxation and increased costs, you wouls see that bill is a complete farce. It is a source of tax revenue only, it will make GE and Gore rich beyond their dreams, and it will not reduce global emmissions. In fact, the overall goal of this Frankenstein BS bill is to POSSIBLY reduce the overall temperature by .02 degrees farenhiet over the course of the next century. This is the largest theft and scam in American history.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 PM on 06/28/2009
photo

I have noted that the first comments on 99% of climate change articles and threads are from deniers. Those deniers, like Dennis60, are paid to post these comments. They have special software that combs the Internet for climate change articles. Dennis60, and their ilk are there to make it sound like the most important comments are from 'real' people.

Those 'real' people are the oil and gas companies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:45 AM on 06/28/2009

I don't believe manmade climate change and I am not paid for it.Good old common sense should tell every one that this is just a way for the goverment to scare people into turning more control of their lives over to the goverment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 06/28/2009

Wow, talk about tin-foil hats. I'm not paid and I think the whole is a theft and fraud.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 PM on 06/28/2009

Amd I'm NOT Republican. Thaink man, think.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 PM on 06/28/2009
photo

I consider myself a healthy skeptic, not a denier. I also seriously consider and research BOTH sides of the issue unlike many true believers. Also not paid. I think you paint with too large a brush...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 AM on 06/29/2009
- dc2nm I'm a Fan of dc2nm 19 fans permalink

The "cool" thing about the internet is that is anonymous. All those paid deniers will deny they are paid.

Since it only makes sense to fight to keep pollution going if you are either paid or really stupid, we will always believe they are paid (or just stupid).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 AM on 06/29/2009
- psch I'm a Fan of psch 2 fans permalink

It might just become law if Matt Taibbi's predictions are right and the big "financiers", given their influence in government, figure out a way to massively expoit the Cap and Trade market for their own gain.

Can't find the actual HP link, but here's the link that the HP article links to:
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html

A long read, but worth it...food for serious thought.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:12 AM on 06/28/2009

Just so you aware, the dems have also removed the few regulations in regards to energy derivatives trading in this same exact bill. The bill states the exisitng regulations on derivatives shall not apply to cap & trade derivatives.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:17 PM on 06/28/2009

lets see, now that the coal industry knows government is dead set on putting them out of business what do you think the response will be? get every penny they can while they can? you betcha!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:10 PM on 06/27/2009
- Kalarchis I'm a Fan of Kalarchis 4 fans permalink
photo

Hopefully they'll start putting their money towards energy that doesn't pollute my air. But...that would require major infrastructure changes, and this is human beings we're talking about, so they're probably not going to do that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 06/28/2009

anyone in the senate that votes for this and those in congress that already did will find themselves unemployed when they come up for reelection.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 PM on 06/27/2009
- mike63 I'm a Fan of mike63 13 fans permalink

Exactly, come on midterms!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:10 PM on 06/27/2009
- dandypuddin I'm a Fan of dandypuddin 178 fans permalink
photo

Yes, and any of them that have grandchildren will be quite sad when the planet is unfit for life.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 06/28/2009
photo

I admit I didn't read the whole thing, but I didn't see anything that would save the planet - just a bunch of big government tripe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:18 AM on 06/29/2009
photo

I don't really trust AP to summarize this issue. I don't see them reporting on Rep. Dennis Kucinich's evaluation. They should.

They dutifully report that some business leaders say abatement technology isn't ready. But we know that when businesses say that a technology isn't ready they often mean it isn't free. Like when they say there is a shortage of people with a particular skillset they often mean the people with that skill set still expect to get paid.

AP needs to get out more and see other people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 PM on 06/27/2009
- CentralVA I'm a Fan of CentralVA 10 fans permalink

It's a complicated issue and AP reporters have to work on lots of different stories. But I agree that the AP should note the reasons that Greenpeace, CORE and other respected organizations came out in opposition to Waxman-Markey.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:08 PM on 06/27/2009
- Lorianne I'm a Fan of Lorianne 60 fans permalink
photo

Dennis Kucinich Lays Out Why He Voted Against Clean Energy Act
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/10478

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 06/28/2009
- mike63 I'm a Fan of mike63 13 fans permalink

Say hello to higher costs for everything, lost jobs, unsafe cars. You will be subsidizing the loss of your job to the rest of the world without any real impact on the environment--USA = environmental economic martyrs.
So funny, and the poor really pay the price.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html
Read it and weep.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 PM on 06/27/2009

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 is misleading at best and this website should be ashamed for posting such nonsense and spreading false info. there are no limits on emissions, they will just have to pay more for their output and that cost will only be passed on to consumers. we get 50% of our energy from coal and there is presently no technology that can even come close to making up the difference, the technology just isnt there yet.

green energy - sure

but dont punish everyone with higher prices to make it happen, let the free market work.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 PM on 06/27/2009
photo

Let the free market work? How? That was exactly the philosophy of the Bush administration and the results were disastrous. There is a lot about this bill that is troubling-but "letting the free market work" is not the solution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 AM on 06/29/2009
- edva I'm a Fan of edva 49 fans permalink

Time to turn the corner. Not a perfect bill, but a good start. To oppose it due to short term fear makes no sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:52 PM on 06/27/2009
- Mauiboy I'm a Fan of Mauiboy 6 fans permalink
photo

Those that oppose this kind of legislation fall into three broad categories:

1). Some truly believe that there is no such thing as global climate change, despite the evidence.
2). Some have ties to these industries that will be affected by such legislation.
3). Some oppose this legislation because it requires govt to implement such changes, and they prefer less govt not more govt.

Just an observation on my part...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:52 PM on 06/27/2009
- huffposeur I'm a Fan of huffposeur 20 fans permalink

Those that support this kind of legislation fall into three broad categories:

1). Some truly believe that there is such a thing as global climate change, despite the evidence.
2). Some have ties to these 'green industries' that will benenefit by such legislation.
3). Some support this legislation because it requires govt to implement such changes, and they prefer more govt not less govt.

Just an observation on my part...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 PM on 06/27/2009
- Mauiboy I'm a Fan of Mauiboy 6 fans permalink
photo

Did you happen to notice where the American public came down on this one in the last election?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 PM on 06/27/2009
photo

"Despite the evidence"? There is plenty of compelling evidence to support the concern. ANd if you are using petitionprogress.org as your reference that is a rehash of debunked material.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 AM on 06/29/2009
photo

4) those who can't afford the price increases on everything that will follow.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 PM on 06/27/2009
- CentralVA I'm a Fan of CentralVA 10 fans permalink

Good point, CrzyRussell. Even if the cost really will be only about $175 per year (and there is reason to doubt this figure), that is a substantial amount of money to a lot of people in this country.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 PM on 06/27/2009

Does anyone that frequents this blog and supports the bill live in Missouri? If so, could you please contact your senator, Claire McCaskill, and urge her to support the bill without watering it down any further (it's already been watered down enough).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:43 PM on 06/27/2009
- CentralVA I'm a Fan of CentralVA 10 fans permalink

McCaskill is (on the whole) a good, responsible senator. She should not support this ill-crafted legislation, which is designed to do virtually nothing to reduce global temperatures while enriching politically well connected special interests at the expense of working people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 PM on 06/27/2009
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