Waxman-Markey: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The devil's in the details of the new climate bill.
The Waxman-Markey climate bill has the environmental community agonizing over a tough decision: Pass an imperfect bill now, or wait and make it stronger, a process that could take years. Here's a look at the high and low points of the controversial bill.
Emission Reductions
The Good
Would cut and offset emissions by as much as 17 percent below 1990 levels by 2020
The Bad
Watered down from original goal of 19 percent
The Ugly
Scientists say a 25 to 40 percent cut is needed to avert catastrophic climate change.
Efficient and Renewable Energy
The Good
Requires states to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources and energy efficiency improvements by 2020
The Bad
Watered down from original goal of 40 percent by 2025
The Ugly
Because the requirement would supersede stricter laws in states such as California, the US Energy Information Administration estimates that it might have the overall effect of hampering clean energy production.
Coal Power
The Good
Requires new coal plants built after 2009 to capture 50 percent of their carbon emissions
The Bad
The requirement doesn’t go into effect until 2025
The Ugly
Strips the EPA of its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions from new and existing coal plants
Cap and Trade
The Good
Ambitiously caps emissions at 68 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 by creating a market in tradable emissions permits
The Bad
By 2020, the cap will have cut emissions by only 4 percent
The Ugly
Only 15 percent of the tradable emissions permits will be auctioned off by the government; the bill hands out another 50 percent of the permits to the fossil fuel industry for free.
Offsets
The Good
Emission reduction projects funded through carbon offsets must be verifiable, permanent, and “additional,” meaning that the projects would not have occurred on their own.
The Bad
If US polluters use all of the offsets allowed under the bill—equivalent to 2 billion tons of CO2 per year—they won’t have to start cutting their own emissions until around 2025.
The Ugly
Despite similar regulation of offsets under the Kyoto Protocol, a 2008 analysis from Stanford found that between one-third and two-thirds of the projects did nothing to counteract carbon emissions.
-
The War Over Waxman-Markey
Pass a flawed climate bill now, or wait for a better one later?
-
Waxman's Climate Bill Speed Reader
-
A Great Observation About Washington from (Duh) Henry Waxman
Henry Waxman may try to eliminate Karl Roves from future White Houses. Why, he observes, should the presidential administration be...
Page 1 of 1 
More Like A Fistful of Dollars
Perhaps it's just the two negative messages to every one positive, but looking carefully at this bill, it seems industrial polluters will score a major victory if this bill gets passed.
It guts the Clean Air Act. It hands out 50% of its emission permits FOR FREE. By 2020, only a 4% reduction. No thanks, this bill stinks.
Renewable energy and energy efficiency are cut in half. As they undermine and replace California's tougher requirements, they could actually have a negative overall effect. This isn't hard to believe, considering that California is the *world's 7th largest economy.
Assuming we don't decide to run our planet into the ashes, much stronger legislation will have to be passed. But if this bill becomes law, it will be MUCH HARDER for lawmakers to accomplish this task.
Industry polluters will point to this bill and argue that these terms were signed in good faith. Environmentalists will be painted as reneging on their end of the deal. Legislators will seek cover with their constituents by pointing to a bill already on the books, failing in their sound bytes to mention how toothless the law really is.
Let's not repeat the mistakes the Easter Islanders did a few hundred years ago.
Good outweighs the bad
Thank you Josh for sticking this stuff together.
I say go for it. The good outweighs the bad. It's an improvement, and the bad is just that it doesn't go as far as necessary. If we don't take it, I have little doubt we'll get nothing since even some Democrats aren't convinced global warming is a serious problem. My thought is the implementation of these measures will show they don't damage the economy, and then the case for stricter controls will be easier to make.
http://www.ravensblog.net
When Congress no longer
When Congress no longer listens to voters but rather pays rapt attention to special interest and industry lobbyists, what is to be done? Even President Obama seems off the reservation on this one. The only way forward is to revoke corporate natural personhood. This oxymoron is the cause of every economic and political injustice save civil rights that have occurred in our country for the last 130 years. Until such time as personhood for corporations is revoked (whereby corporations may lobby Congress and the President as if such corporations were natural persons) we can look forward to deaf, dumb and blind representatives for the foreseeable future.
Not just corporations but
Part of the problem is the voters. Unfortunately, a stupid and self-centered electorate has been bamboozled into believing that global warming isnt that pressing a problem - if indeed it is real at all. We can thank stinking US science education for part of that, but a large share of blame also goes to the swine right wing and Fox's Nazi News.
http://www.erreauk.com
Requires states to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources and energy efficiency improvements by 2020
