First steps: If Congress passes the proposed climate-energy legislation, the US economy could move away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. Click through the following images for graphics and more information on where carbon emissions come from and how the new legislation would impact the next 40 years.
(NEWSCOM)Key points of the climate-energy bill before Congress
Lawmakers craft a bill that will move the US to a far cleaner energy policy.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ June 4, 2009 edition
New climate-energy legislation advancing in Congress would mark the biggest shift in US energy policy in 30 years, thrusting the economy toward renewable energy and away from fossil fuels.
If the bill, which cleared a key House committee May 21, is approved by Congress, it would be the biggest step by the United States – the world’s largest greenhouse-gas emitter per capita – toward curbing climate change.
If President Obama signs the bill ahead of December climate talks in Copenhagen, as some suggest is possible, it would give the US a major role in shaping a multinational response to the climate problem.
Because stemming carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels is central to the climate conundrum, the new American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee addresses energy and climate in one bill. Here is a rundown of its key points:
What’s the bill’s aim?
The ACES bill focuses on the smokestacks that produce 85 percent of US greenhouse emissions. It follows a three-pronged path to shift the nation to a low-carbon economy by boosting energy efficiency, developing renewable energy sources like solar and wind, and curbing greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGs).
Together, these are intended to cut US emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 – a compromise from the previously set 20 percent cut. That should put the nation on a path to reach 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 to help avoid the worst effects of global warming.
The bill is intended to jump- start a US push into energy-efficient technologies and grow green jobs, while boosting national security by shifting the US vehicle fleet toward use of domestic electricity instead of imported oil.
How would this be accomplished?
The main mechanism would limit emissions using a market-based “cap-and-trade” system for industrial carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters.
Beginning in 2012, a national “cap” – or total maximum CO2 emissions – would be set and then ratcheted downward annually.
Electric utilities, cement and steel plants, and others would need one “allowance” for every ton of CO2 sent up smokestacks. Power plants emit about 2.4 billion tons of CO2 annually – nearly 40 percent of total US greenhouse-gas emissions.
What about renewable energy?
A key part of the bill is a national renewable-energy standard combined with an energy-efficiency standard. US electric utilities would have to get 20 percent of their power from a combination of renewable sources (15 percent) and energy efficiency (5 percent) by 2020. But in a major compromise, governors could petition to increase the amount of energy efficiency up to 8 percent, with just 12 percent coming from renewables. Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the Democratic co-authors of the bill, accepted the lesser standard to win support of Democrats from states where coal-fired power plants predominate.
What’s the price tag?
The total abatement cost would be $22 billion in 2015, rising to $31 billion in 2020 and $64 billion in 2030, the EPA reported in April. This would slightly curb average annual US economic growth from 2.71 percent to 2.69 percent. The cost per household is estimated at $98 to $140 per year.
But the final cost of the bill was set still lower by the House Energy and Commerce Committee compromise, which mandates a 17 percent (instead of 20 percent) emissions cut by 2020.
That change, the EPA says, would “likely result in lower allowance prices, a smaller impact on energy bills, and a smaller impact on household consumption.”
Critics say it will cost far more.
Rep. Joe Barton (R) of Texas warns that the bill will “impact every person, every family, and every business” to the tune of “trillions of dollars.”
But, says Natural Resources Defense Council economist Laurie Johnson, by the time abatement costs reach $64 billion a year in 2030, the US economy will have grown more than $9 trillion – about 150 times the amount spent on CO2 abatement.
Who pays the most?
As a candidate, President Obama proposed auctioning all carbon emission allowances – none given away – to avoid a windfall for polluters.
But to win congressional support, some 85 percent of the allowances would be given away (just 15 percent auctioned), according ClearView Energy Partners, an energy economics firm, a change decried by some environmental groups. Still, most of the freebies must be used specifically to blunt the impact of rising energy prices on households and energy-intensive industries. By 2020, the bill would increase the percentage of auctioned allowances to 90 percent.
In 2012, when the cap kicks in, electric utilities would get 44 percent of carbon allowances, according to Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView. Again, the bill requires utilities to pass the benefit along to consumers.
Some 15 percent of the value of allowances would go to low- and moderate-income households to defray higher energy costs.
Energy-intensive industries like steel, cement, pulp, and paper would get 2 percent of allowances to soften competition from foreign rivals that don’t have to meet an emissions requirement.
The House bill is expected to pass. What happens in the Senate, where Republicans may be able to filibuster a companion bill, is an open question.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Joshua Cranmer | 06.04.09
One error to mention:
The U.S. is not the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, per capita. That award would go to Gibraltar or Qatar (depending on if you consider Gibraltar to be a country). Qatar’s emissions per capita are thrice that of the U.S., as are a handful of other Middle Eastern countries, Bangladesh, Brunei, and Singapore (statistics courtesy of the Department of Energy, using figures for 2006: ).
Yes, however, the U.S. is the world’s largest gross emitter of carbon dioxide, but keep in mind that 4.52% of the world’s human population resides in the U.S. Another factor is that the U.S. is responsible for approximately 20-25% of world economic activity, so our share of emissions is approximately average compared to our economic stance.
3. Brent | 06.04.09
There are strong arguments that this bill will provide a net benefit to the economy by supporting new industries and creating new jobs — at the expense of moribund industries dependent on fossil energy which is finite and increasingly scarce (and thus expensive), and which inflicts a host of externalized costs on society (from climate change to mountaintop removal mining).
Even under the worst scenario, the economic impact of this bill is miniscule when compared to any realistic assessment of the cost of climate change.
Fred Singer is a climate change denier. Unlike 99% of the other deniers, he actually is a climate scientist. But he is one of fewer than a dozen actual, qualified climate scientists who continue to ignore the evidence in favor of global warming. And his statement that this bill is “without any scientific justification” tells you all you really need to know about his motivations: while there continues to be disagreement about climate science (as there is in all fields of science), the statement that there is no scientific evidence in support of climate change is simply absurd on the face of it.
4. Brent | 06.04.09
Actually, China surpassed the US in total carbon emissions some time in the last two years. Their per-capita emissions are way, way lower than ours, though.
At any rate, this is ultimately a question of leadership. Despite all the errors of the recent administration, ours is still the richest and most powerful country in the world. We are in a unique position to influence the direction the world takes in combating climate change. It’s time to get out in front, and act like the “world leader” that we like to think of ourselves as.
5. MikeHawaii | 06.05.09
In June 2009, the first full NIPCC report was published, titled Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The new report, some 880 pages in length, is the most comprehensive critique of the IPCC’s positions ever published.
It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an appendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
I’m pretty sure you will be able to find more than a dozen qualified scientists among the 9,000+ American PhDs who signed the petition. Clearly, no matter what anyone tells you, there is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man-made emissions of CO2 or that increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is harmful to plants, animals or humans. On the contrary, more CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial because it increases crop yields and reduces the amount of water that plants need to grow.
6. Esm | 06.05.09
Climate change is a scientific fact. What is not a fact is that human beings have any impact on global temperatures. It is kind of presumptous to think that we can affect the global average temperature. Looking at scientific evidence, the average annual temperature is still several degrees cooler than it was before the industrial revolution. Evidence shows that there are other factors at play that the “Gore party” hasn’t even considered.
7. Brent | 06.05.09
Fortunately, I don’t need to waste my time dismantling the bogus NIPCC report. It’s been done already: http://tinyurl.com/66ccw3
More generally, most of the major denialist talking points have been addressed here.
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
The very idea of “scientific consensus” — i.e. all the scientists agree with each other — is ridiculous. That’s not how science works. But there is an enormous body of evidence to support the idea that humans are driving climate change, and that we will pay a heavy price.
However, there is something very close to consensus on the broad picture of anthropogenic climate change.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
(If you disagree with the Wikipedia article, edit it — if you have citations to back up your position.)
This unusual degree of agreement is well understood by people in the scientific community, and has been obscured by industry funded efforts which reinforce people’s desire to believe that “everything is going to be all right”. Wikipedia has a good summary. Again, change it if you can document the basis of your disagreement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Unfortunately, as much as we would like to believe that “it’s all going to be OK”, it is profoundly clear that it is NOT. In terms of the price humanity will pay, here’s a nice accessible resource that cites peer-reviewed publications from a variety of fields:
http://tinyurl.com/pksjez
8. Megan from ACCCE | 06.19.09
Forcing electricity providers to commit to a reduction of 17 percent below 2005 levels by as early as 2020 will require electricity providers to make almost immediate investment decisions to meet the compliance deadline. What’s the result? The switch to higher priced fuels could undermine the long-term success of the program and leave consumers holding the bill—for decades.
One way to minimize price increases associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to keep low-cost energy options like coal in our nation’s energy mix. Also, we should set a limit on the price of emission allowances. If we do that, we can guarantee that consumers are protected against skyrocketing energy costs without slowing down efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.
We’ve got a space for you to tell Congress to make sure HR 2454 protects consumers here: http://sn.im/tellcongress
9. Tom Duffy | 06.25.09
The goal is noble if you are a true carbon believer. See http://joannenova.com.au/. Unfortunately, even if the US is destroying the world through our emissions this bill will only destroy our ability to do so through the destruction of our economy. Much pain will ensue and we will not solve anything. The major source of new clean power is nuke and these plants are not sited and built overnight. They take decades if all goes well. There does not seem to be enough incentive in the bill to get nukes on line quickly.
This problem should not be addressed in a matter of weeks with this knee-jerk bill.
10. Trigg/Texas | 06.26.09
Thanks, thanks, thanks. I just hope there is enough government benefits to go around, because I believe we will all be below the poverty very soon. How can this happen in America? Is no one listening? Congratulations to Al Gore, sounds like you have a money making proposition. Where shall we sign up for welfare?
11. zenith | 06.28.09
When they finally obliterate the use of oil, you will find yourself with no wax, no plastics, and the thousands of sanitary items used to prevent the spread of germs an diseases. There is already a carbon catching device in the process. That would gather any carbons put out by cars, etc. Bottom line is, they have let dumb Al Gore tell them how to take care of mother earth. The man who uses more gas than most anyone in the USA. He and Edwards. In other words, what will be considered good for us, will not be used and adherred to by Democrats. Samr goes for health care. The fools who voted for this will not be reelected. The American people are beginning to see what is happening.
12. Aaron | 06.30.09
What is the motivation behind passing the bill? Does all this lobbying reflect Al Gore’s deepest love for our ecosystems and wildlife….or is it his love for deep pockets?
www . theartdeptchronicles . blogspot . com
13. Cathy Thompson | 07.02.09
This energy bill is 10-18″ thick! Who has read it? Can you interpret for us, Brent? Don’t tell me about climate change! If I’ll listen to anyone it will be the scientists or maybe the man that was told, by the EPA to shutup about the truth of global warming. Obama and our congress are dismantling this country day by day, bill by unread bill. If my energy bill is able to double or triple I could find myself paying up to $3500. per month. We’re not getting rich but we were able to employ ourselves and five others. We paid our own hospitalization and they did the same! (They were paid a decent rate that allowed this) We’ll see how many new jobs and if there’s a balance to the businesses that have been destroyed. Tim Ryan (D) Trumbull County Ohio lost my vote and respect. We’ll see who’s lookin out for who
14. Jamie | 07.02.09
Dear Senator,
I am writing you to urge you to vote NO on the current energy bill. Forcing home owners to upgrade to “green” energy before selling their home will bankrupt the mortgage industry in several small areas in the U.S. and is beyond the foresight of the federal government. I actually think many of the items proposed are a good idea; however, the problems hide in the details.
For example, to tax emissions on coal powered energy plants is wrong. The federal government’s lack of oversight on their own projects is the reason we have so many of these gas omitting power producing sources. The federal government passed the Homestead Act in the late 1800’s and several other bills that encouraged people to move to the west. A person who could farm 160 acres of land for three years was given ownership of the land. These bills encouraged entrepreneurs to move out west live in harsh conditions and farm in the arid desert. Moreover, the bureau of reclamation received millions of tax dollars to build dams and clean energy hydroelectric sources to provide the farmers with reliable water sources. All of this was done to promote movement into the arid desert of the west.
At the height of its program in 1960’s the feds stopped some of the planned damns they were going to produce because it would destroy some of the most beautiful natural features in the west (which there does need to be a balance between growth and protection of environment.) However, the Glen Canyon and Hoover dam were built and provided water and energy for those who moved west.
Why do we have coal power plants in places like Arizona, because the federal government created the Arizona Power Authority and the CRSP to sell and distribute the power produced by these two large energy sources (Hoover and Glen Canyon). The way the legislation was set up under the APA and CRSP, Arizona couldn’t get the power it needed to access its share of water in t he Colorado River Compact and was forced to build alternative power sources (coal plants).
The federal legislation for the CRSP provides that power from the Glen Canyon Dam will be sold to entities in the Colorado drainage basin. I recently spoke with managers of the CRSP to find out why the power from the Glen Canyon dam was being sold to half the state of Nebraska and Wyoming. These states are not in the drainage basin and Nebraska isn’t even a member of the Colorado River Compact. The CRSP say they stretched the rules a bit.
The Hoover dam and CRSP 30 yr contracts will be renewed in 2017. Instead of taxing the **** out of the Coal plants and increasing individuals power bills by over 30%, why doesn’t the legislature change the APA and CRSP power distribution laws to provide the clean energy we have built to the states that use the Coal power plants. That way you’re cutting down on emissions and not bankrupting the citizens of the west who can’t afford to pay 30% higher utility bills.
Large bills like this Energy Bill should require a minimum of five years of research, reviewing all the options and implications before passing through the politician’s pen. If so many past federal programs have failed to follow through and be effective, why is this one any different? Please vote NO. I support funding research of the options and implications before making new laws.
Sincerely,
Jamie Carpenter
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Antonio33 | 06.04.09
No patriotic and informed American can support the global
Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will hurt mostly the poor and the middle class. Cap and trade will give dictatorial powers to Obama and will further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, etc.) — all at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” said famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.