The House Climate Vote Defies Expectation
The House just passed its first-ever bill designed to unleash clean energy opportunities, create millions of jobs, and combat global warming.
This historic vote defied expectations. Back in January, few people believed that six months into a new session and a new administration -- and in the midst of an economic meltdown -- we could pass transformative clean energy legislation in the House.
Well we did it. And we did it because this is America's quickest path toward a cleaner, more prosperous future.
House leaders Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Ed Markey deserve a great deal of the credit for this success.
This was not an easy fight. The bill touched off regional differences and challenged Big Oil's and Big Coal's stranglehold on America's energy supply. Waxman, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, had to corral many opposing interests to create a bill that would get out of committee and survive the bumpy journey through the Senate and on to the White House.
The bill that made it past the House will help America begin to address the climate crisis. I hope that the bill will become stronger as it progresses along the legislative process, but as Waxman said at a recent press conference: all the essentials for fighting global warming are already in the bill. (Watch the video NRDC produced on the significance of this vote here.)
One of the keys to this bill's success was that Americans from all walks of life urged their lawmakers to back climate action. (Click here to learn about the cross-section of Americans who came to a DC rally in support of the bill on Wednesday.)
I saw it for myself. In the past year, I traveled the country to help build momentum for national climate legislation, and the people I talked to -- from clean energy entrepreneurs in Cleveland to labor organizers in Chicago, from national security experts in Georgia to religious leaders in New York -- all believe that building a clean, sustainable energy future will unleashing enormous opportunities for Americans. I agree, and that is why I am thrilled that the House passed this bill.
But I also recognize that this is just the beginning. We need to improve this bill and get it through the Senate and on to the president's desk, and we need to do it before the international climate negotiations begin in December in Copenhagen.
The fight in the Senate will be challenging. But just as we defied expectations in the House, we can defy them in the Senate.
In the coming weeks, my NRDC and colleagues and I will be turning all our attention to this final push. The House's historic passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act just gave our efforts powerful momentum.
This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.
Loading comments…
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
I don't think that people understand the significance of this bill. The government will now TAX ALL energy companies if they emit any carbon into the air. As we all know companies DO NOT pay taxes the consumers do. So our energy bills will rise accordingly.
This man mis-states in his article that we can now "FIGHT" global warmming. I don't think that you can fight it. It is a natural occurrence. I remember in the '70's on the front cover of Time magazine they were spewwing the irrational effect of global "COOLING".
Warming and cooling of the eath is a cyclical effect and has been happening since the beginning of time.
Also in his article he says that the signing of the bill will "unleash clean energy opportunities, create millions of jobs, and combat global warming." HUH? I did not know that you had to have the governments perrmission to come up with clean energy. By the way just so you know, we already have some of the cleannest energy on earth, can you say N U C L E A R !!!
Prehistoric warming and cooling of the earth is a cyclical effort, ice ages occurring in a ~100,000 years. We were at a natural warm point; but now we've made it hotter.
This is standard denier bull hockey. Bears no relation to science or reality.
We have made it hotter??? The hottest summer on record was in 1936. What are you talking about?
Yeah, nuclear! WTF? Can we store all the waste at your house? Are you going to keep the bi-products out of the hands of people who want to use them for destructive purposes? Are you going to stop the meltdown when some maintenence technicians inflate a basketball with duct tape around it to clean the fuel rod area (the basketball didn't hold and the technicians were killed when the water forced the basketball out of the pipe)? When jellyfish swarms almost caused a meltdown in a Florida reactor, I was against nuclear. Chernobyl melted-down, and people still can't live anywhere near that area.
As far as climate change being a natural, cyclical event, you're pertially correct. But the ice cores they analyse have shown that we are adding greenhouse gases at a much higher rate than nature naturally does. Warming could cause rapid cooling if it melts-down Greenland's ice sheet and stops the ocean's conveyor belt. You have no knowledge of this subject and should read more (and stop listening to Hannity and Rush). Global warming is real. It's happening. It's caused by us. But you don't have to worry about it because you won't live to see the results.
I think keeping the bi products out of the hands of people who want to use them for destructive purposes was what George W. Bush was trying to do.
There has only been two Nuclear accidents, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
It is impossible for any PWR or LWR nuclear reactor to explode like an atomic bomb. This is because in order for an uncontrolled chain reaction to occur that is similar to an atom bomb, the uranium fuel must be extremely enriched, much more than the 4% 235U that is present in regular, commercial nuclear reactor fuel.
And as for the basketball, I think that these people need college degrees before being hired to work in a nuclear reactor.
Global warming is real. I never said that it was not happening, but it is cyclical. The earth warms and cools over periods of hundreds of years. This is a scientific fact. If we were causing it why is it not hotter now than it was in 1936.
This "cycle" of warming in the last half century is unprecedented and very fast. And this global cooling nonsense has been debunked again and again. There was never a scientific consensus that we were entering an age of global cooling. Next, you'll be citing the 31,000 "scientists" who have signed the petition that global warming is a hoax.
The question is, what do you guys get out of this irrational denial? What drives this counterproductive movement? Have you ever considered that if you are wrong, we are doomed? And if you are right, we will have developed a brand new world with plentiful, inexhaustible renewable energy coming from the source that has produced all the fossil fuels in the first place - the sun - and that we will not run out of energy or pollute the planet to death, irrespective of climate change.
Honestly, you guys have no vision, no imagination, nothing. You just don't get it. We win, earth wins, if we go this route over the long haul. How can you be so blind?
To them, i.e., the deniers of global warming, it's all about protecting the oil and coal industrial strangehold and consequential their profits.
I hate to tell you but when you talk about a "scientific consensus" that proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Science is not a "consensus".
Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
No one has done this with man made global warming. I wonder why that is?
please US senate; sign the bill
push US off cliff
our supreme leader....barry...mighty words...
"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know " Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I"m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it " whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle
Not to me -- I'm reducing my energy consumption. Duh.
And doing everything I want and am just as comfortable.
Copenhagen is the only reason that we went this fast. Obama needs something to show other nations (China) that we are serious on climate change. It is an accomplishment but it is not as groundbreaking as the author implies.
Quite frankly the bill is a joke. The economics behind cap and trade are pretty sound. The problem is government never takes an easy straight forward approach. To get this bill through we made huge concessions. First we don't auction off the permits; we give 85% them away. Thats great if you're Duke Energy not so great if you want to get off coal and oil. Energy companies cannot pass on the higher prices to consumers; thus defeating the purpose of pricing carbon.Since we give the permits away Obama losses a big source of revenue. The time table for implementation time is too long. The big reductions in Co2 come from assumptions from gains in technology. Farmers were given concessions and farmers will be policed not by the EPA but the Department of Ag (will give them a pass).
This bill should have been straightforward. We are left with a mess. It's a disgrace that we had to butcher the core concepts of the bill. A carbon tax would have been simpler than this mess. It won't pass the Senate; if it does you can guarantee that coal interests and rust belt Senators will get even more concessions and subsides thus making America's cap and trade more of a farce.
This is just a start - hopefully. I do believe that the Dems were too soft in their initial position and the inevitable negotiations and compromise left the bill weakened. But it's a start and once the final compromise bill makes its way to the POTUS' desk and is signed it becomes a launching pad for further tightening of standards. Hopefully.
It's a bad bill.
It's a huge giveaway to the worst polluters, does not require gov rooftop solar, and favors "clean Coal" bs over everything.
Kucinich
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/10478
rooftop solar at 3 cents per KWH should be the big investment.
see my profile for proof.
In addition to an appaling lack scientific consensus and open public debate on the issue, 'few people believed..... in the misdst of an economic meltdown' the house would pass, what could very well become, the largest single tax in the history of the country.
This is NOT good legislation. This is NOT good government. This is the continuation of the tax and spend orgy that has come to symbolize 'the failed policies' of the Obama administration.
"Lack of consensus" NOPE! Research journal publication are overwhelmingly on AGW.
This is standard denier bull. There are sociopaths with science degrees who profit by making up lies that they don't attempt to publish. Then there are cranks who have no relevant degrees that have managed to get publicity.
The research scientists who make authentic contributions to climate science see the effects already today; it only gets worse.
I'm sorry, but your hyperbole has redlined. Enough with the nonsense. It's not the largest tax in history. And taxes are not inherently bad, anymore than socialism. You can't get away with Republican fear mongering on a site with thinking people. The cost to the people is the investment we make to transform our energy sources from fossil fuels to renewables.
And please. Failed policies of the Obama administration? Have you just returned from 2014 or something? He's been president for six months. His policies haven't gone to work yet.
Big oil and big coal need to become largely extinct. As a nation we must alter course and lead the way toward a cleaner, less populated, more environmentally sound and balanced future. We must throw off the chains of myths of our ancestors and engage the reality of rational logical thought.
I'll guarantee you this: If you don't call your congressman or representative from this point on, you, we, us will get what we deserve.
Somsoc is one of those people who secretly fantasizes a scenario of catastophe on the planet where only they, and like-minded people, survive to start a new utopia.
How exactly do 'big oil and coal become extinct' without societal collapse?? (this is a lot worse than the power going out for a few hours and most people have a hard time dealing with that)
What exactly are the 'myths of our ancestors'?
Stop being a 'Sloganista' and start offering some practical ideas. Erasing everything and starting over again only happens in kindergarten.
Appalachia can't stand anymore of the progress and prosperity of mountaintop removal. Wise County, VA is being bombed, blasted and bulldozed right into 3rd world America.
www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138
If you understand the science underlying global warming, it's hard to celebrate this Bill. Yes, it is better than nothing; and yes, it is an impressive legislative accomplishment.
Here's the reality. We run the risk of triggering the release of 3000 gigatons of methane from arctic permafrost and clathrates. Thats double what's in the atmosphere now, and methane is 23 times stronger than CO2.
This has happened twice before in geologic history -- in the Paleocene-Eocence Thermal Maximum, and the Permian Die off. In both cases, temperature increases of less than 6 C started the methane releases, and once started, they fed on themselves. Both changed the Earth for millions of years -- in the Permian event more than 94% of the marine fossil record was wiped out.
Here's the bad news. Methane has been bubbling up from arctic muds and clathrates for 3 years, and atmospheric concentrations are rising. Not surprising, since temperatures in the Arctic have risen by between 5 and 7 C.
The only relevant question for a Climate Bill, then, is are the near term caps sufficient to avoid the prospect if triggering release of methane from arctic tundra and clathrates.
And the answer for ACES is no.
So, let's have a very brief celebration, then get to work doing what needs to be done. The Earth doesn't care about poltical realities. She has her own, and they wil not be denied.
jbatch, enlighten those of us who don't "understand the science".. what triggered this catastrophe during the the Paleocene-Eocence Thermal Maximum, and the Permian Die off?? Was this another case of AGW or cyclical temperature fluctuation??
If we are headed for another die off (or ice age) then taxing the snot out of the populace is really not going to make a diffence is it?
Oh yeah, how often in history have we had temperature increases of 6 degrees C?? Did the planet experience catastrophe each time?? ( I mean, you know.. worse than the northern hemisphere being covered with ice a mile thick.)
Both were triggered by unusual -- and extremely rare -- surges in volcanic activity, and both unfolded in centuries, while for all practical purposes humans are doing their deed in a single century.
And lbrty, if you're going to comment on this issue, please educate yourself. Mindlessly repeating ignorant talking points from Republican ditto heads about "huge taxes" shows you haven't a clue.
The best way to act in the short term is to make the economy more energy efficient. The US uses more than twice as much energy per unit of GDP as Europe and Japan -- that's waste, and it costs us. Cutting this waste would save the average citizen money (but it would cost coal and oil interests -- which is why Republicans oppose efficiency).
Here's the bottom line: Even if renewable energy cost twice as much (and it doesn't) if we use half as much our monthly energy bill stays the same, even as we eliminate carbon.
And as for how often, as I said, events as extreme as the PETM and Permian die off are extremely rare. And please don't suggest that if it happens in nature we don't need to worry about what we're doing. It's a disaster either way.
Hope your questions were sincere, and you actually research this a bit. Unless you are an idiot or a mindless denier, you'll come round to a rational position with a little honest research.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
