What the Energy Bill Really Means for CO2 Emissions (TIME)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Bryan Walsh
Saturday, Jun. 27, 2009

With a razor-thin margin of just seven votes, the House of Representatives on Friday evening passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act — the first bill to put a fixed and declining cap on U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Republicans and Democrats in the House spent much of the day sparring in sharp language over the bill, which will reduce U.S. carbon emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below by 2050. In the end, the vote of 219 to 212 included more than 40 Democrats who broke ranks with their party's leadership to vote against the bill. Republicans savaged the bill as an economy-killing energy tax — one member even called for a moment of silence for the Americans who would lose their jobs because of the bill — and some left-wing environmental groups, including Greenpeace, withdrew their support because they believed the bill's compromises made it far too weak.
(See TIME's photos of ways to boost energy efficiency.)

But the bill's passage is a palpable victory for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama — who both made a last-minute push to snap wavering Democrats back in line — and a landmark for the environmental movement. "The American Clean Energy and Security Act is the most important environmental and energy legislation in our nation's history," said Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). "Today's vote is a huge achievement for the country and the climate."
(Watch TIME's video: "The Truth About Wind Power.")

That the bill — also known as Waxman-Markey after its co-sponsors, the Democratic Congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey — is historic is obvious, as it marks the first successful attempt by Congress to address climate change at a national level. But as the bill moves to the Senate, where the virtual requirement for 60 votes means that passage will be even more difficult, it's far less clear that Waxman-Markey is strong enough to meet the long-term threat of global warming. The sheer difficulty of the negotiations that produced this 1,300-page bill — and the fact that despite weeks of compromises, it barely passed — demonstrates that Waxman-Markey might be as good as the greens can get. But it might not be good enough for a warming planet. "This won't get us to where we need to go," says Michael Shellenberger, the president of the Breakthrough Institute, an energy think tank that has been critical of Waxman-Markey.
***
more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1907528,00.html?xid=rss-topstories-cnnpartner

[doc03]

1. The bill is total BS, it says the bill will reduce

US carbon emissions by 17% by 2020, that may be so. The way it accomplishes that goal is taxing energy users in the US into bankruptcy, Obama made that statement back in the campaign I believe. The oil, coal, gas whatever will be used in China India and elsewhere. These countries have no environmental concerns whatsoever so in effect this will increase worldwide pollution. Thousands and thousands of energy dependent jobs in the US will be lost forever. Then you have all these so called green jobs that Obama claims will be created here. How on earth could anyone be stupid enough to think they will build solar panels or wind mills here? I heard one claim that every one of those giant windmills will use 250 tons of steel. Newsflash it will no longer be feasible to produce steel in this country. They will build them where the steel is CHINA and ship them here. This bill if it ends up passing will guarantee a Republican sweep in the elections of 2012.