digg Digg  StumbleUpon StumbleUpon  del.icio.us Delicious  Attention, open in a new window. PrintE-mail

Senate Debates Controversial Climate Change Bill

industrial emissions
©istockphoto.com/Kimberly Deprey
The bipartisan Climate Security Act proposes to cap the amount of greenhouse gases industrial companies can emit each year. The bill includes an emissions credit system, however. How does that work? Each polluter begins with a certain number of 'credits'—the amount of carbon and other greenhouse gases they're allowed to emit. At auctions, they could sell, buy or trade their allotted credits. In the 1980s, a similar credit system helped reduce acid rain. The Senate debates the bill beginning this week.

CLIMATE SECURITY: Politicians, corporations and environmental groups tackle greenhouse gas regulations this week on Capitol Hill. Washington experts say to expect fireworks—few topics are as divisive as global warming.

Starting this week, the U.S. Senate begins debating a bill addressing climate change. The controversial Climate Security Act aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 66% by the year 2050. Critics claim it will hurt the economy, while supporters claim the benefits outweigh the minimal cost.

Cap and Trade: Buying and Selling Carbon Credits

U.S. Sens. Joe Lieberman (Ind-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) first introduced the bipartisan bill in October 2007. It targets major polluters, such as:

  • power plants
  • manufacturing facilities
  • oil companies

The proposed legislation would employ a "cap and trade" mechanism for industry by:

  • placing a limit on current emissions
  • requiring a reduction of emissions by about 2% every year from 2012 to 2050
  • allotting emission credits, which could then be bought, sold or traded to other companies

How does the carbon credit system work? Each polluter begins with a certain number of emissions "credits"—the amount of carbon they're allowed to emit. At auctions, they could sell, buy or trade their credits. In the 1980s, a similar credit system proved effective for tackling the acid rain crisis.

Climate Bill Critics Say...

Critics of the bill, however, claim it will raise the cost of energy and hurt the economy.

Energy: "If a cap-and-trade bill becomes law, every single American will pay more for gasoline, more for electricity, more for food—more for everything they buy as a result," said U.S. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). (Sen. Bob Corker Web site, 5/22/08)

Economy: Other opponents of the bill fear it will have a disastrous impact on the country's economy. According to a study by the National Association of Manufacturers released earlier this year, the Climate Security Act could reduce gross domestic product (GDP) as much as $210 billion by the year 2020.

Climate Bill Supporters Say...

The bill's supporters argue, though, that the economy won't be affected nearly as much as critics claim.

Energy: Proponents of the Climate Security Act say the program's revenues, estimated to be around $6.7 trillion over nearly 40 years, will be used to offset the increased cost of electricity and gas for middle- and low-income families.

Economy: When the Environmental Defense Fund studied a variety of potential pollution caps, it found the effect on GDP from 2010 to 2030 might only be 0.5%. The report also predicted that there would not be a significant number of jobs lost, another concern of the bill's opponents.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Debate Just Beginning

Critics and supporters alike view this discussion as the first round of what promises to be an epic battle:

  • Despite all the intense blustering expected from Congress over this issue, observers say the bill doesn't have enough votes to pass in the Senate. And it may not even reach the House this year.
  • President Bush has promised to veto the proposed legislation should it ever reach his desk.
  • All three presidential candidates have said they favor some form of regulated emissions.

Copyright © 2009 Informify

Informify by Email!


Question for Readers:

How large of a role do you think the debate over greenhouse gas regulations will play in the presidential election?

"We haven't seen a bill of this import in nearly half a century."

-David Crockett, a representative of the
National Wildlife Federation
(The Oak Ridger, 6/2/08)

Last month, U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R­-Tenn.) proposed a program for developing greener technologies to help the United States achieve energy independence. The program, Alexander said, could be based on the World War II-era Manhattan Project—focused on energy rather than atom bombs.

Alexander also suggested the new initiative could be based in Oak Ridge, Tenn., home to the Department of Energy's largest science and energy laboratory.

Responses (6)add comment

Something must be done

Owen Conneely from Brighton, MA said:
The free-market system works provided that government steps in and regulates under certain circumstances when necessary. This is exactly such a situation. Business and industry, with a few commendable exceptions, will not regulate themselves or their carbon output without government direction. While it is true that there will be some effect upon the economy, this is not a good enough reason to continue polluting the planet until the damage is irreparable. The government should look towards creating more jobs within new fields of conservation and recycling, and use the revenue from the act to offset the cost of oil (already high) and support these new industries.
June 07, 2008

Great responses

Sean Conneely said:
Thanks to our loyal readers who have taken the time to respond to this story. Clearly, how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be debated for some time. Too many parties have a great deal to lose. And, as we are about to enter a heated presidential election battle, it will be interesting to see how the candidates position themselves on the issue. Most especially, as the price of gasoline continues to skyrocket, independent of this proposed bill.
June 03, 2008

What role will or what role SHOULD?

Paul Martin Suckow from Houston, TX said:
This will play a minor role in the Obama-McCain election efforts because each recognizes that greenhouse gas cap-and-trade is necessary. Obama wins the point based on the most aggressive reduction proposal of any canditate in '08. McCain is likely to be hobbled by entrenched business interests that promote the do-nothing stance in the GOP.

What role SHOULD greenhouse gas regulation play in the fall elections? Life as we know it hangs in the balance. We must not feel satisfied with a 40-year reduction of 65% in the industrial sector. Even 100% elimination of industrial point source emissions is not enough to ensure that the chance of entering a runaway warming climate is held below 50%. We have our work cut out for us, folks!
June 02, 2008

The European lesson

Mick Tinker from Encinitas, CA said:
I was in Europe when a cap and trade system was introduced. The electricity generators burnt coal in the year that emissions were measured to maximize pollution output. Once the system was active they used only natural gas and they pocketed $billions$ by selling their credits!!!

A fair system is one all pollution has to be offset, i.e. 100% traded - all pollutants are then charged equally. It will cause more of an upheaval when it is introduced, but we will be paying full price for pollution. That means price will drive down pollution and by comparison make clean energy more viable.
June 02, 2008

BORING

Daniela from Honolulu, HI said:
Is anyone else BORED with hearing people complain about the effects on the economy?? It seems like people use the economy as an excuse for anything GOOD that we try to do in our domestic or foreign policy. Under this monotonous paradigm, our economy is FAILING, in case they haven't noticed! Maybe it's time to come to terms with the fact that endless growth is an ecological impossibility, and start coming up with policies that can enhance our quality of life that don't involve the top 1% getting richer.
June 02, 2008

It's the War First

Bill Newton from Berkeley, CA said:
I doubt if it will have as much of an impact on the campaign as will the war and the general economy. How the economic message of the debate over greenhouse gas regualtions may have an effect on some House and Senate races.
June 02, 2008

Write your response below to question above
The administrator has closed this article for responses.

busy
High Country News
Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Managing Your E-News Subscription  |  Previous Newsletters
Copyright © 2009 Informify. All Rights Reserved.