http://www.environmentalleague…
Waxman-Markey: Too Close to Call
Thirty-three years ago, in 1976, I served as campaign manager for a young Mass. State Representative running as a dark-horse candidate for the U.S. Congress. Remarkably he won, and I served as his first Administrative Assistant. His name is Ed Markey.
This Friday, the U.S. House of Representative is scheduled to debate and vote on the Waxman-Markey bill, historic legislation to address climate change. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is critically important. For the first time in our history, we will place a value and impose a cost on carbon emissions that endanger our planet. For the first time we will set clear goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050. And the revenue generated from the “cap and trade” system will be used for energy efficiency and wildlife adaptation, to support research and development, for training for the jobs and technology that come with developing alternative and renewable energy sources, and to assist low-income consumers.
Ed Markey called the other day to share his sense of excitement and concern for the legislation. Passage is not assured. Provincial and special interests representing regions that are financially tied to fossil fuels or outdated industrial production will resist. Even agricultural interests are wavering as they demand that agricultural practices that sequester carbon be regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and not the U.S. EPA. According to Markey, even the most optimistic estimates suggest a very close vote.
H.R.2454 is not a perfect bill. Some in the business community are violently opposed to what they believe is simply a “tax.” Some in the environmental community would prefer fewer free allowances and greater costs imposed on emissions. And others would prefer greater investment in adaptation or efficiency or jobs. Democracy is a messy business, often requiring compromises that stretch our belief systems.
But all of us must recognize the herculean task of marshalling sufficient support and votes to pass this precedent-setting national legislation. We respect the compromise. We are hopeful Members of the U.S. Congress will put parochial interests aside and rise to meet this national and international challenge. Friday is only the beginning. Hopefully, debate leads to a successful House vote. Then on to an uncertain future in the US Senate and, if successful, a Conference Committee leading to final passage.
We commend Congressman Markey for his leadership and determination steering this critical legislation to the brink of passage. We urge you to contact your friends across the country and urge them to contact their Congressional House Member in support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act.
George Bachrach
A juice bill in service of an environmental fantasy which is obviously not happening.
We obviously need to walk before we run legislatively. I think George Bachrach makes it clear that it may in some people’s opinion not be perfect but it is getting the rock to start the uphill climb. In this case we are battling large well-entrenched interests that have been a part of our boom and bust economic cycle. They are in their twilight in my opinion but still no push over in changing the way we do business. So I will take a win even a small one with the opinion that we will be right back for another bite. Congressman Markey and Waxman have done a lot of heavy lifting to advance the agenda they deserve our support now and when the next step is put into process.
<
p>Suggesting that this is simply a “juice bill” shows a real lack of knowledge and understanding of the process.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
Everything that is wrong with our political system is the attempt to get something for nothing. Even by the standards of somebody who believes in global warming, this bill is an obvious fraud, because it puts the heaviest taxes a loooong way off, when we’re all dead. The same thing happens with every announced social program, the government makes a big deal of its generosity in the beginning and then finds a way to get out of paying in the end, either by inflating the currency or paying so little for the promised services that they are never delivered.
<
p>I don’t believe the people who wrote this bill believe that global warming is happening. They have grabbed onto an issue that temporarily scared the public, in order to redistribute money from dips in Massachusetts to industries that were the “problem” in the first place.
that we never landed on the moon that was a hollywood set and John Houston was the Director and John Wayne played Neil Armstrong.
<
p>Wow goes to show you how wide the gene pool is I think I will stay on my side from now on.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
<
p>Nothing here…
<
p>Or here…
<
p>What’s the big deal?
<
p>Can’t blame the sun…
<
p>Holey crikey…
And the spring was really cold. Another few years of this and your theory is down the toilet.
<
p>The money we blow on this could have been spent on school sports, money for the insane, free elections, bombs and all the other programs I read about.
– 3 months of data in one spot on the globe doesn’t trump 50 years of pretty steady increases
<
p>- Climate change ain’t uniform, in time or space
<
p>- Climate change doesn’t eliminate natural variability (actually, it’s expected to increase it)- it’s still allowed to get cold, sometimes
<
p>- Solar irradiance has been trending down 2005-8. Wait ’til it ticks back up and reinforces, rather than counters, GHG forcing
<
p>- Houston had a record high of 104 yesterday. It’s weather, get over it
The data says that total degree days from 7/1/08 to present were a grand total of 10 higher than normal (5592 v 5582).
<
p>So the weather data doesn’t back your “data”.
you think because you were cold this winter means in your simple way that global warming is a myth. Lets try reality you were colder because you turned your heat down 5 degrees because you did not want to pay the gas or oil bill because that was sending your American money to the middle east so they could come over here and blow you up in your bed RIGHT!
<
p>Please go back to your cave your going to be just fine their and let the rest of us get on with straightening out the world so some day 50 generations from now some one will see your cave paintings and wonder what it was like in 2009.
<
p>You have the simple answer its cold… ala no global warming… with logic like that it’s a wonder evolution has not given up on human race.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion!
Waxman-Markey is a fraud. If it was a package of Swiss cheese, you’d be getting a pound of air. Just like the European cap and trade system was a fraud that did absolutely nothing to cut carbon emmisions, this stinker will cost money – particularly Massachusetts money – and do nothing.
<
p>W-M is the equivalent of the old “declare victory and leave Viet Nam” theory. Only instead of not fighting a war, Waxman-Markey will not fight carbon output.
<
p>For any system to work, it would have to raise prices on coal and petroleum products until it hurt. Bad. Think $6 gasoline. Think heating bills tripled. Waxman-Markey attempts to move chairs around on the Titanic, and it’s been gutted even there. At 1200 pages, it is a wealth-redistribution bill, plain and simple. The business sharps and the farm states will come out golden, while the rest of us wonder where the money went.
Why, specifically, has the European system under-performed?
<
p>Was the U.S. SO2 cap and trade program effective?
<
p>Why are price signals the only solution? What’s wrong with ACES’s building standards, for example?
<
p>What of the other standards (buildings, vehicles, renewables, etc.) in ACES?
<
p>Was the original Clean Air Act an unblemished piece of legislation?
<
p>The perfect is the enemy of the good; the open question for me has been whether ACES is sufficiently ‘good’. On balance, and faced with the political consequences of its defeat, I’m going with ‘good enough.’
This isn’t the good – it’s the bad. The elaborate EU system was jobbed from the start, just like this bill. National governments made sure there was a surplus of credits, so that their businesses would not suffer. The exact same thing has been done here. There are so many loopholes that you could drive an oil tanker through it. This is not SO2, and it’s not acid rain.
<
p>Your representatives in Washington want to tell you they are doing something, but they dont’ want to take responsibility for damaging the economy and taking money out of your pocket – as they know any real effort would require. So instead, they pass this mess and pat themselves on the head.
<
p>Things like building standands can be done independent of cap and trade – which is the heart of this bill. The need – if you buy in to the consensus – is to immediately cut carbon output in a big way. Short of rationing, the only way to do that is to boost prices artificially. Double the price of gas today, and you are guaranteed a cut in driving nationwide. Acid rain was cut at the factory smokestack. Cutting CO2 is going to require retail pain.
<
p>From someone who does this for a living:
<
p>http://sciencepolicy.colorado….
The issue is we can write the bill with no holes and no one votes for it and your doing what tomorrow? Taking swimming lessons maybe so when the tide rises 25 feet you can tread water to Worcester right. Or like in all legislation you compromise and you get some holes and some no holes and you continue to move forward next time the next bill will fill in some of those holes. The main point is starting the process. 4 years ago under George and Dick you would only have holes no cheese.
<
p>We need to continue to make progress Congressman Markey ahs accomplished that so stop whining their is holes in your Swiss cheese and be glad you have food at all.
<
p>Under the US Constitution and the Rules of the House and Senate you must get a majority of those elected to support a measure for it to pass and in the Senate you need 60 votes to stop debate and call a vote. Then you need a President to sign it (thank God for Obama). With Caveman like Seascraper above and his fellow cavemen in the Senate and House we needed to make compromises to continue to move the issue forward.
<
p>Unless you would prefer to do nothing and continue the swimming lessons. Your choice. I called
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion!
– EU Phase I was jobbed, by design. It’s called priming the pump. Phase II is tighter and may well be working.
<
p>- Retail pain of $4/gallon in 2008 resulted in a reduction of vehicle miles travelled by 3-5% vs. the prior year. Woo hoo. Given the physical infrastructure of our country, the transport piece (at least) is quite inelastic. Performance standards, though clunky, can actually get you somewhere at much lower cost. Besides, serious “retail pain” is dead at the ballot box. Witness the freakin’ gas tax in MA.
<
p>- A good deal of energy can be saved at zero or negative cost. In a rational world these opportunities would all have been snapped up by now. But I have too much data on commercial and residential energy use that shows otherwise. ACES helps prime this pump, as well.
<
p>- Cap and trade is, by definition, rationing. With loopholes.
<
p>- Here’s a counterargument to your Pielke piece. Pielke doesn’t understand the economics of even a flawed offset program.
<
p>I do have concerns that ACES could be like HAVA- take a problem and make it worse. But I’m willing to take that risk over the risk that the failure of ACES sets us back 5-10 years.
Usually can count on him, but past performance is no guarantee, as they say. Does anyone have better intelligence on whether he’s supporting the legislation?
As Usual just my Opinion