Waxman-Markey: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The devil’s in the details of the new climate bill.

Photo by flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/isphoto/116909896/">isphoto</a> used under a <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a> license.

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.  

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 more we thought about how MoJo's journalism can have the most impact heading into the 2020 election, the more we realized that so many of today's stories come down to corruption: democracy and the rule of law being undermined by the wealthy and powerful for their own gain.

So we're launching a new Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption. We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We'll publish what we find as a major series in the summer of 2020, including a special issue of our magazine, a dedicated online portal, and video and podcast series so it doesn't get lost in the daily deluge of breaking news.

It's unlike anything we've done before and we've got seed funding to get started, but we're asking readers to help crowdfund this new beat with an additional $500,000 so we can go even bigger. You can read why we're taking this approach and what we want to accomplish in "Corruption Isn't Just Another Scandal. It's the Rot Beneath All of Them," and if you like how it sounds, please help fund it with a tax-deductible donation today.

We Recommend


Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.


Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.