Five Hot Spots in Congress's Upcoming Climate Change Debate
A preview of the debate over proposals for a cap-and-trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions
3. How aggressive should those emissions targets be?
President Obama and House leaders are calling for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80 percent (from 2005 levels) by midcentury, in line with what climate change scientists say needs to be done. The stickier question is how aggressively the United States should move in the next decade or so. Obama has proposed a 14 percent reduction by 2020. The new House bill is more aggressive, calling for a 20 percent cut by 2020. For more conservative Democrats, this may be pushing it, again reflecting economic concerns. On the other hand, for foreign countries looking for the United States to make bold moves at next December's climate change talks in Denmark, this may not be enough.
4. Should other programs be added to the bill as sweeteners?
In an effort to woo skeptical members of Congress, House leaders are trying to tie cap-and-trade provisions to other, often more popular energy policies, such as clean coal technology, energy-efficiency measures, or plug-in hybrids. That's what Democrat Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia and others pushed for in the House draft bill that came out last week. On the Senate side, however, Democratic leaders are choosing to split things into different bills. Both houses will have to agree on the same bill at the end of the day.
5. And then there's the economy.
All of these fights could get eclipsed by overriding fears about the health of the economy. Conservative Republicans continue to cite a study released last summer by the like-minded Heritage Foundation warning that hundreds of thousands of jobs could be lost if a cap-and-trade system is implemented and that electricity rates would skyrocket. Democrats have begun to fight back, arguing that the Republican critics are overlooking not only provisions that would return money to Americans but also the economic gains that would come from energy efficiency and conservation.
At the end of the day, says Mignone, it's a numbers game. "What you need is a stable coalition of the environmental left with a collection of centrist Democrats and Republicans who want to do something but need to feel that their concerns are being adequately addressed."
Reader Comments
tuOhZohVJQirA
lemyaskin rulezz
Global Warming
Although it is clear that global warming has taken place it has not been established that we did it. From what I have read on the internet, global warming (and cooling) is probably from long solar cycles, so if true then there is nothing we can do but to adapt around what is inevitable. It’s like adapting to volcanoes or earthquakes. My favorite website explaining this is here.
www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
But the popular argument is anthropogenic climate change, we did it, so it can be controlled and it is our moral responsibility to do so. But if a definitive study were to take place showing climate change is caused by the sun, there would be no more studies. After that we would spend money on engineering safeguards and the climate scientists funds would dry up. The author of the following link explains this better than I. He refers to this as Big Climate which is likened to Big Tobacco.
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/14/climate_comment/
Then there is the Petition project.
www.petitionproject.org
Here over 31,000 American scientists signed this petition and over 9000 of them have PhDs. The purpose of the petition reads as follows.
‘The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of ‘settled science’ and an overwhelming ‘consensus’ in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few ‘skeptics’ remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,478 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not ‘a few’ Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed; it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not ‘skeptics.’
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.’
Think of it, if you have a nasty problem then someone comes along and wants to show you that it’s really a non-problem, wouldn’t you hear it out? We have been fretting all the doom and gloom of climate change, then comes along a large body of scientists saying that we are not the cause of global warming and it is probably driven by the sun. Wow, our problems may have easier solutions that all the expensive ones that are now being proposed in our governments. So it is so exciting that the Seattle Times has 0 articles about this. Then I read in the Seattle Times where they say they are vital in providing objective repor
Rebate the Additional Revenue
Since ultimately the consumer will pay most if not all of this additional cost for energy directly or indirectly, this should not be used as a revenue stream to be spent by the federal government. Perhaps some can be used for energy technology R&D, but most should be returned to the citizens of our nation in the form of rebates to offset the higher cost to all consumers.
advertisement
