<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<oembed>
	<version>1.0</version>
	<type>link</type>
	<objectid>218911</objectid>
	<title><![CDATA[Cap and Trade Part 5: What's With the Add-Ons?]]></title>
	<url>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/cap-and-trade-part-5-what_b_218911.html</url>
	<abstract><![CDATA[<p>If Waxman-Markey has a cap and trade, why does it need all the other stuff like fuel-economy standards for cars, renewable electricity standards, and building codes?</p>
<p>The Waxman-Markey <a class="external-link" href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=1633&amp;amp;catid=155&amp;amp;Itemid=55">climate bill</a> is attracting a lot of criticism, from both sides of the aisle. One criticism is not even aimed at Waxman-Markey's main event, the cap and trade. It's leveled at the other stuff, the non-cap-and-trade add-ons or, in the words of the <em>Washington Post</em> editorial board, the "<a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/06/AR2009060601797.html">Buried...</a></p>]]></abstract>
	<taxonomy><![CDATA[Green]]></taxonomy>
	<date_published>2009-06-24T13:55:00-04:00</date_published>
</oembed>
