Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE WAXMAN/MARKEY CLIMATE CHANGE BILL.
Alright, April Fool's Day over, as I can't figure out how to handle the House's 600-page cap and trade bill in sarcastic code. The full text is here. Human beings, given our puny brains and inability to recall previous subsections referred to be their numerical identifier, will probably prefer the summary document.
The bill -- which is the joint work of Henry Waxman and Ed Markey -- calls for a 20 percent cut in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, a 42 percent reduction by 2030, and an 80 percent cut by 2050. The crucial question of how the allowances are apportioned and how the revenues are distributed has been left open for negotiation. The only concrete signal on this is that 15 percent of the permits will be given to energy intensive industries to help them manage the transition. That's a nod to political realities, but worrying insofar as it's the only concrete policy the authors have proposed.
Reports are that Waxman and Markey mean to begin hearings on the bill during the week of April 20, push it through subcommittee markup around April 27th, and bring it to the full committee on May 11th. The hope appears to be that the Senate and the House will reconcile their finished bills in the fall.
Instant reaction has been cautiously favorable. Joe Romm gives the bill a B+. Brad Plumer seems more skeptical, noting that if the proposed two billion in carbon offsets -- a policy most experts are skeptical about -- "were all used, the cap's emissions targets could be met for 20 years without anyone needing to reduce their fossil-fuel use." Dave Roberts comes out on the other end. "If this thing gets passed it will be an epochal change in U.S. policy," he says.
All these folks say that the bill is a good start. What concerns me is that it's not clear how it gets better. Waxman and Markey probably represent the leftmost edge of the possible. They're aggressively liberal, terrifically informed legislators who get the moral urgency of climate change and possess the intellectual firepower to grasp the necessary scale of the response. If this is as far as they felt able to go on an opening bid, it's hard to see the legislative pathway that strengthens, rather than weakens, the legislation.
COMMENTS (12)
Glass half empty - this is the best we can hope for?
Glass half full - at least someone is willing to propose the maximally achievable version instead of building a bunch of what should be negotiated compromises into the initial language.
Posted by: spot check billy | April 1, 2009 2:47 PM
Ezra said " They're aggressively liberal, terrifically informed legislators who get the moral urgency of climate change and possess the intellectual firepower to grasp the necessary scale of the response."
I continue to believe that we make a big mistake if we make this about the "moral urgency of climate change." This is about getting our civilization off of oil and onto alternatives, because either we have already hit Peak Oil or we will do so in the next 30 years. Personally, I hope its closer to the latter because this will be the hardest thing modern civilization has ever had to do. People do not grasp how essential cheap oil is to our modern standard of living, and how screwed we are without it. They do not grasp how much the current financial crisis is a result of peak oil. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5230
There is a good portion of this country that will never believe in global warming, or if they do, they will not care enough to pay higher energy prices. But, if we make the simple case that there is not enough oil to go around, and that we are creating wars in the Middle East to get at what exists, we will convince many more people of a conservative persuasion to support something like the Waxman bill.
Posted by: nathan | April 1, 2009 2:50 PM
If this is the best carbon tax/cap and trade bill that can be passed, then it's hard to see why Democrats should even bother with that approach. This falls way short of actually addressing the severity of the problem while still giving Republicans a great campaign issue to use in 2010 that Democrats increased energy prices during a depression. Time to develop a regulate and subsidize approach instead.
Posted by: Ron E. | April 1, 2009 2:59 PM
"calls for a 20 percent cut in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, a 42 percent reduction by 2030, and an 80 percent cut by 2050"
I spotted your April fool's joke! No one could believe that any legislator in 2040 will actually care what legislation enacted in 2009 had to say about carbon emissions reduction goals.
Posted by: ostap | April 1, 2009 3:10 PM
Production is or has peaked because no one wants to allow more exploration and extratction. Example would be the continental shelf drilling that is not allowed. I suspect there is much more oil out there than we suspect and while it may run out at some point, this hyper anxiety tht it will be very soon is not warranted. Fear is how the Democrats got the bailout through without reading the bill and fear is how they wish to push green energies, not economics.
The U.S. Geological Survey just published its official results of a groundbreaking study. Its report confirmed a massive oil reserve in an area the locals have nicknamed the "Bakken," which stretches across North Dakota, Montana and southeastern Saskatchewan. The new USGS study estimates a whopping 3.65 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken... but here's what they didn't mention: The reported 3.65 billion barrels of oil mean estimate is for 'undiscovered' oil only, and doesn't include known oil, such as reserves.
In fact, the study reports a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered... compared to the agency's estimate back in 1995.
Posted by: El Viajero | April 1, 2009 3:17 PM
forgot the URL, sorry
http://www.greencleancompliant.com/content/plenty-oil-united-state
Posted by: El Viajero | April 1, 2009 3:18 PM
In the overall scheme of energy consumption, 3.65 billion barrels isn't "whopping". Especially when it's in a crappy, low-permeability reservoir like the Bakken and will require thousands of wells and decades to extract. The Bakken wasn't just discovered. It's been known for years. You just couldn't make money producing it at 1990s prices.
On another point, global warming is only in fairly small part about oil. On a global basis, the CO2 contribution of oil and gas is dwarfed by coal burning and land use/deforestation. Even in the US it's only about even with coal. It's part of the problem, but only part.
Posted by: TL | April 1, 2009 4:03 PM
Anything that doesn't involve China, India and few other emerging is useless. If the strategy is 'leadership', it's a poor one. Hamstringing the US economy on a hope is just dumb.
This mentality is similar to those who championed the Kyoto Accord when they, themselves acknowledged that it would have little to no effect without these other countries but would have a devestating effect on the US economy.
It's the epitome of Koolaid drinking.
Posted by: El Viajero | April 1, 2009 4:20 PM
ELV,
3.65 billion barrels of oil is half of what the US consumes in a year.
"Devastating effects on the US economy" Seriously? I think "help the US economy transition to a more sustainable energy source" would be a far better description. You know business leaders balked that labor rights, woman's suffrage, and the abolition of slavery would have "devestating effects" on the economy.
The economy is here to serve people, so creating an economy that kills us off or pins our hopes on ever decreasing natural resources is insanity.
Posted by: jfv411 | April 1, 2009 6:03 PM
Don't drive a car
Posted by: El Viajero | April 1, 2009 11:05 PM
http://www.wowgold-powerleveling.com
Posted by: wow gold | August 4, 2009 9:02 PM
http://www.igchest.com
Posted by: acheter kamas | November 6, 2009 11:11 PM