Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change
WASHINGTON - Overcoming deep divisions within its Democratic majority, the House passed legislation on Friday intended to address the threat of global warming and transform the way the United States produces and uses energy.
The Avaaz Climate Action Factory, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and the Energy Action Coalition hold a rally to urge the US House of Representatives to pass the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The US House of Representatives on Friday narrowly passed historic legislation to cut carbon emissions blamed for climate change.
(AFP/Tim Sloan) The vote was 219 to 212.
The vote was the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill intended to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change, and its provisions could lead to sweeping changes in many sectors of the American economy, including electric power generation, agriculture, manufacturing and construction. The House vote also establishes a marker for the United States when international negotiations on a new global climate change treaty begin later this year.
"This legislation will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our nation a leader in clean energy jobs and cut global warming pollution," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, a co-sponsor of the bill, adding that Friday's vote was a "decisive and historic action" that would position the United States as a leader in energy efficiency and technology.
The bill's provisions forcing reductions in the use of fossil fuel while increasing production of alternative energy sources would produce millions of new jobs, Mr. Waxman said.
But the legislation, a patchwork of compromises, falls far short of what many European governments and environmentalists have said is needed to avert the worst impacts of global warming. And it has pitted liberal Democrats from both coasts against more conservative Democrats from areas dependent on coal for electricity and heavy manufacturing for jobs.
Friday's vote illustrated that rift: The bill passed by a seven-vote margin, with 44 Democrats voting against it.
As difficult as passage in the House proved, it is just the beginning of the energy and climate debate in Congress, since the issue now moves to the Senate, where political divisions and regional differences are even starker.
At the heart of the legislation is a cap-and-trade system that sets an overall limit on emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide while allowing utilities, manufacturers and other emitters to trade pollution permits, or allowances, among themselves. The cap grows increasingly tighter over the years, pushing up the price of emissions and presumably driving industry to find cleaner ways of producing energy.
While some environmental groups supported the legislation, others - Greenpeace, for example - vigorously opposed it. Business groups were also split. Republican leaders called the bill a national energy tax and predicted that those who voted for the measure would pay a heavy price at the polls next year.
"No matter how you doctor it or tailor it," said Representative Joe Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania, "it is a tax."
Only eight Republicans voted for the bill, which runs to more than 1,300 pages.
Apart from its domestic implications, the bill is a show of resolve that American officials can point to when negotiating the new global climate change treaty, after years of American objections to binding limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who was in Washington Friday to meet President Obama, strongly endorsed the bill even though it fell short of European goals for reducing the emissions of heat-trapping gases.
Ms. Merkel, a longtime advocate of strong action to cut carbon dioxide emissions, has been pushing the United States to take a leading role in advance of the global climate negotiations set for December in Copenhagen.
After meeting with Mr. Obama, she said she had seen a "sea change" in the United States on climate policy that she could not have imagined a year ago when President George W. Bush was in office.
"This really points to the fact that the United States is very serious on climate," Ms. Merkel said.
The compromises in the bill were necessary to attract the support of Democrats from different regions and ideologies. In the months of horse-trading leading to Friday's vote, the bill's targets for emissions were weakened, its mandate for renewable electricity was scaled back, and incentives for various industries from automobiles to natural gas were sweetened.
The final bill intends to reduce overall heat-trapping gases in the United States by 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by midcentury.
When the program is scheduled to begin in 2012, the estimated price of a permit to emit a ton of carbon dioxide will be about $13. That is projected to rise steadily as emission limits come down, but the bill contains a measure to prevent costs from rising too quickly in any one year.
The bill grants a majority of the permits free in the early years of the program, to keep costs low. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the average American household would pay an additional $175 a year in energy costs by 2020 as a result of the provision, while the poorest households would end up with $40 in rebates.
Several House members expressed concern about the new market to be created in carbon allowances, saying it posed the same risks as markets in other kinds of derivatives. Regulation of such markets would be divided among the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Treasury Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The bill also sets a national standard of 20 percent for the production of renewable electricity by 2020, although a third of that could be met with efficiency measures rather than renewable energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal.
It also devotes billions of dollars to new energy projects and subsidies for low-carbon agricultural practices, clean-coal research and electric vehicle development.

18 Comments so far
Show AllThe cap-and-trade system.
Now anyone can 'buy' permission to poison their neighbors.
We can even smoke out these congressional corporate lackies with impunity.
cap-and-trade is already failing miserably in Europe. No wonder Wall $treet, Big Oil/Coal/Nuclear, and the rest of the polluting industries aren't complaining.
Nothing like "kicking the can" down the road for others to deal with.
This bill does essentially nothing immediately, the moment when it is most needed and the cumulative effect the greatest. Like going to a 55 mph speed limit at a minimum.
One could have hoped that USAns might have learned a lesson from past energy crises. There WILL be a tax on fuel, but the proceeds will go overseas or to Big Oil, instead of our Treasury.
Maybe the USA is simply too big, NOT to fail. Seems like there was a book by Leopold Kohr some time ago called "Breakdown of Nations" that described this effect.
Maybe USAns could convince the Congress to delegate power to about a dozen autonomous regions who could control their own destinies better than a single Congress can.
Maybe not.
Sadly, too little too late would seem to describe, not only most political activities, but also most public responses to the underlying problem based on assumptions about how U.S. representative democracy actually works.
So long as USAns continue to allow their love affair with capitalism and its financial interests (a.k.a. "The American Way") to determine representational electability, their lives will continue to be ruled by those interests regardless of their electoral choices.
Although the terminology itself is somewhat questionable in today's economic environment, it can certainly be argued that capitalist "free enterprise" brings certain benefits to THE MARKETPLACE. It should be intuitively obvious, on the other hand, that its financial takeover of a nation's ENTIRE SYSTEM OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE is totally inconsistent with true democracy ("of, by and for the people") in any form.
It really is that simple -- and that difficult to resolve when it becomes so strongly established with indoctrinated followership, judicial blessings and protections of all kinds as it has in the U.S.
Hmmm, Republican leaders opposed it. It must have been good.
Democrats overcame internal divisions and narrowly passed it-that would be them, if it's good it's uphill. So although imperfect and lacking it WAS a step forward, and by Dimocrats?
Awwwe CD threaders, where for art thou? The Dems, I have learned well are clowns, but less abjectly evil than the thug-club that gave us Cheney, an "Oil Man."
When dims get something right they are invisible here though. Multiply that times a few million progressives and I ain't sure it is a good thing. More like dick would like it. and george. That infallable litmus test again.
I'm not so sure the bill in its current form is a step in the right direction. An environmental group I was heavily involved with last year came out against it, or at least calling on Congress to strengthen it. Now they'll focus on getting the Senate to make it stronger...good luck.
The EPA was granted authority to regulate greenhouse gasses by the Supreme Court. It would be much simpler for the EPA to impose a cap on carbon that way.
I'm surprised that even you aren't supporting the bill but it's ok. :)
"It would be much simpler for the EPA to impose a cap on carbon that way."
I assume you mean cap-and-trade, correct? If so, I still can't take cap-and-trade seriously. I've heard that the idea isn't doing well in Europe.
No, not cap and trade. No trading...just cap carbon emissions, impose heavy fines on exceeding them, and lower the caps each year. It would provide a much better incentive for utilities to switch to renewable energy.
Unfortunately, the cap and trade thing is for businesses only. Otherwise, a group of low footprint individuals could make money from their mega mansion suv neighbors. But that would be logical and would provide a real society wide incentive to be frugal. The elite certainly can't have that. What would Oprah think?
I see the NYT couldn't complete the first sentence of this story without telling a whopper lie:
"...the House passed legislation on Friday intended to address the threat of global warming..."
Wish I could say that surprises me.
Kucinich had it right:
“I respectfully submit that not only can we do better; we have no choice but to do better,” Kucinich insists. “Indeed, if we pass a bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away with only an illusion. The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take substantive action.”
Source: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/26/dennis-kucinich-votes-against-climate-change-bill/
Kucinich made sure the Bill had already passed before he cast his protest vote. He realizes we have to get something started before the repubs lie their way back in and send us back to drill baby, drill. The close vote was probably orchestrated to allow a few vulnerable dems to vote no.
It is a start. It will encourage investment and R&D, and will finance any number of nationwide and local renwables and conservation projects. My problem with it is offsets money going offshore. That better be audited very carefully with big time penalties for fraud. At a minimum it will lay some groundwork for when things really start falling apart and we decide to make an all out effort. Watching C-SPAN, Boehner stood there in the House reading off snippets of detail, trying to act incredulous show how the bill takes away our freedoms.., but he was sharing a pretty good plan, and the more he read, the better I liked it.
Raising energy costs on working people who are already broke is typical of Congress. Common sense would suggest that a serious adjustment to the tax code would be in order. The corruption at the top cannot see that the foundation is rotting, with predictable results. Once again, our futures lie in local efforts to forge a new economy based upon sustainability.
If Congress really wants to curb global warming, they should look to Ron Paul's HR 1866:
http://www.votehemp.com/PR/04-03-09_introduce_HR_1866.html
I'll give the weasel BF credit on this issue for opening his brains on this one even though I'm still angry at his supporting Wall $treet bailouts and more "free" trade scams. Here are some other cosponsors:
* Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D, WI-2]
* Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48]
* Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1]
* Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4]
* Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
* Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22]
* Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4]
* Rep. George Miller [D, CA-7]
* Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46]
* Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13]
* Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D, CA-6]
I'm surprised Kucinich isn't on the list but he has always been a strong advocate of legalizing hemp for all purposes, not just industrial.
If you all care to really cut down on global warming, contact your representatives and tell them to support HR 1866.
Even Ted Nugent supports the hemp idea. If he knew this though he'd really support HR 1866. I'll take him for governor of MI over that flimsy Granholm who's no progressive anyway.
Shame on them. This whole thing is a joke. Neither the believers or disbelivers are served by this bill. Its simply corporate payoff and a national energy tax.
The arrogance and dishonesty grows.
Maybe Angela Merkel was here to explain Pres Obama the process by which energy companies get free carbon credits from the government so they can in turn increase the cost of energy to their customers. It worked fine in Germany where energy prices went up 25%.
Oh well, not much the public can do. Just live with it and get a job with an energy company.
This Bill won't curb climate change: what it does is throw a few crumbs off the table to provide political refuge for the pond scum who voted for it, nothing more.
This is what you get when you let the industry write our laws!
Like the health issue, the common people have no voice.
I think about all the money that went to prop up the speculators who lost big time with people's investments. Seems their well being is more important than a healthy home for the rest of us.
Throw the bums in D.C. out!