House Passes Climate Bill Including National RPS

I watched the debate on C-Span... there are too many questions and uncertainty about climate change and the effects of this legislation to justify passing this bill. The risk to the economy and jobs is too great until we can act with more certainty.

The goal of this bill is to reduce the average temperature of the planet by 0.2 degrees by 2100. That's absurd!

The estimates given about the cost ranged from "the cost of a postage stamp a day" to $3100 per year to families. Before this gets past, we deserve to know exactly what it will cost.

The main problem I have with this and other recent legislation is that it gets rammed through by the majority leadership - they coerce their side to vote along party lines, not giving them a chance to understand what they are voting for. There was a 300+ page revision added to the bill at 3 am Friday, and they didn't even have a complete copy in the chamber during the debate. The party members are voting to support their leadership, not their constituants. These are the lemmings that need to be replaced in 2010.

I support the need to reduce pollution and the use of fossil fuels. I do NOT believe the theory of global warming/climate change. I certainly don't support this bill and the government bureauracracy, control, loss of jobs and increased costs that it contains.

Interesting comment on the $3100 price you mention at

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/06/climate-and-the-3100-lie-detector?cmpid=rss

And it could be said the lemmings are those in the majority that got us in this situation over the last 30 + years

What "situation" is that? Prosperity? Because now they want to take it away and give the government control over everything.

What I said was that was the range of estimates. That's the trouble - not only do we not know how much it will cost, the lemmings didn't even have time to read it before being forced to vote on it. Legislation this important should not be shoved down our throats - like the ridiculous stimulus package was - the American people deserve to have a say. If 'they' don't give us a say, we change 'them' in 2010.

The demoncrats say the bill will create jobs - Spain did the same thing, but it cost them 2.2 regular jobs for each green job - and $803,000 in taxpayer subsidies for each green job. What makes anyone think it would be different here? The House was inundated with phone calls, running 50-1 against the bill. But did they listen? Nope - the lemmings did what Pelosi told them to do.

Like I said - this is BAD legislation!

Don't believe in climate change either.

But pollution is bad, and the cost of pollution for transporting goods from China should be part of the retail price--Be American/Buy American would become a lot easier.

AWEA supports the bill because they are supported by the companies connected to the grid monopoly. We have a government that believes the public does not need to know what they do with tax money.
They suck, we blow.

The bill which passed in the House had far less than the 60% support that it will need to pass in the Senate. I hope it gets passed, but I don't see how it can.

Comment #4: Exactly! If all Americans believed this way, the country would have lower unemployment, fewer uninsured people, better schools & education, taxes wouldn't have to go up, deficits would go down, etc., etc.

Glenn: so you want the bill to pass, so you can pay higher prices for electricity and gasoline, see Americans put out of work and give more of your money to the government, for a possible reduction of the earth's temperature of 0.2 degrees by 2100... how does that make any sense???

This bill is so deeply and thoroughly compromised, I am immediately suspicious of anyone who speaks of it in extremes. It is neither a panacea nor a "big government" bill. I urge skepticism of any hype about this bill, especially the right-wing talking points about the bill causing higher energy prices.

The CEO of Progress Energy recently said, "You know, no matter what happens in policy space, electric prices are going to go up in the future."

For many decades America has paid for the pollution from coal and petroleum on April 15th (health care, defense of oil, EPA, etc). This bill says we will begin incorporating those externalized costs into the price of coal and petroleum, and it is a first step towards leveling the playing field for non-polluting renewables and efficiency.

I live in the South, where we have no fossil fuels: The purchase of coal and petroleum saps our economy. North Carolina leaks $9 billion a year in petroleum purchases and $2 billion a year in coal purchases. We can no longer afford this transfer of wealth from our economy.

Here's the bottom line, the choice our Senators now face: Do we want to rebuild our economy on cheap fossil fuels and expensive nuclear, with all their external costs and wealth transfer? Or do we want to shift our economy towards RE and EE, which keeps our money nearby, grows more jobs, and has less external costs?

And don't give me that noise about RE being more expensive: http://tinyurl.com/LazardEnergy2

For me it is a strictly economic decision: I know coal, petroleum, and nuclear are NOT the path towards a stronger healthier economy. EE, wind, solar, biomass electricity, etc., will improve the economy, clean the air, and if we do it right, we might just regain our global economic leadership.

ACES is a good start, symbolically important, and a critical signal to the investment community. We need to strengthen it and pass it.

Barack Obama's original quote, which came from a videotaped interview he did with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board very early in the presidential campaign, January 2008:

"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

John, you acknowledged it yourself: "This bill says we will begin incorporating those externalized costs into the price of coal and petroleum..."

Please tell me how long it will take to replace 50% of our nations' electricity generation (currently from coal) with renewable sources.

Please tell me how this DOESN'T increase everyone's cost of living...

As for "growing jobs", when Spain implemented cap-and-trade, it cost them 2.2 "non-green" jobs for every "green job" created. Manufacturing costs will go up as energy costs go up, forcing manufacturing overseas, causing the loss of jobs. Please tell me how it will be any different here and how it will be a net positive affect on jobs in this country.

Think about it...

Agree with John's post and I'm a supporter of the Pickens Plan....Paul, we've heard what you are against, do you have a different solution? Or do you think we can keep burning coal until we deplete the reserves?

As a matter of fact, I do, and it includes the Pickens Plan.

We (the US) need too things: 1. The fuel to bridge us to the point renewables are able to carry the load; 2. Reasonable funding for installing renewables. Both of these can be done without wrecking the economy and with immediate job creation.

Basically, it's this: a fifty cent per MWh tax (and I hate to use the word) on electricity. (Would you even notice if your electric bill was 50 cents higher?)

The net generation in the US in '07 was 4B MWh - 50 cents each would generate $2B. If that was used as 50% to 75% credit toward renewables installation, we would install $3B - $4B worth every year, putting a lot of people to work and reducing pollution. Add net metering and feed-in tariffs and there is real incentive for businesses and individuals.

With that, redirect the stimulus give-aways/spending to implement the Pickens Plan, converting our vehicles to natural gas. Again, putting people to work and reducing pollution.

The bridge comes from removing barriers to getting our (US's) oil and gas into the market. Put people to work (where they also get health care benefits), the government collects royalties and income taxes. We stop sending our money to hostile nations and invest it here.

In 20 years, we will have $60B to $80B worth of renewable electricity generation in place, displacing coal. We will have over half of the vehicles in the US running on natural gas. Unemployment will be below 4% and the number of people without health care will drop by more than half. All this for fifty cents/month, instead of the ridiculous cap-and-trade debacle.

Has anyone here examined the science behind Global Warming ? The 600 some scientists of the IPCC have meticulously studied this issue and have concluded that indeed global warming is happening. In fact they shared the Nobel Peace prize for this effort. People from all over the world recognize the facts about global warming. Sadly, it seems that the only ones that don't get it, are some Republicans, and their talk show 'mouths'.

They teach global warming in grade school, and they teach it in college. A fact.

Now, for the Pickens Plan. T. Boone Pickens is an oil man, with ownership of HUGE reserves of natural gas. Please don't be fooled by his effort to delay/derail the electric vehicle. He's simply out to make money, regardless of what it does to affect climate change.

Big Oil has spent many millions fighting the truth about climate change, and without doubt, they'll continue to conive, lie, etc. to derail efforts to switch to clean sources of energy. Same goes for the coal industry. Does anyone think they will sit idly by while America switches to clean sources of energy ? Of course not, they have been, and will continue to wage war against clean sources of energy. And they will do this by ANY means available.

Don't be fooled by the lies of Big Oil, or the coal industry.

Joseph - Many scientists also believe in the theory of evolution, and it is taught in schools - yet it is not fact, it is a theory. Like the theory of global warming, it is a flawed theory; just because many people believe it does not make it true.

What is missing from the global warming theory is the effect of the sun - it changes, and causes changes in the earth's temperature. This is the main reason that I, and many other thinking people, reject the theory of global warming / climate change.