Politics
Politics Blog

House Ways and Means ranking Republican Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich, holds up a copy of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, June 19, 2009.

(Susan Walsh/AP Photo)

Photos (1 of 1)

A tooth-and-nail fight in House over climate bill

The measure, which calls for the most striking government intervention in energy use since 1975, is up for a vote Friday.

By Peter Grier  |  Staff writer/ June 26, 2009 edition

Washington

The House of Representatives on Friday began debate on a controversial measure to cap US greenhouse-gas emissions. If passed, the bill would represent the most profound government intervention in America’s energy use since Washington began regulating the fuel economy of vehicles in 1975.

The measure is one of President Obama’s top legislative priorities. Yet the vote to advance the legislation to the House floor was a relatively close 217 to 205, and 30 Democrats defected to vote against it.

Democratic leaders continued to tweak the bill Friday in an effort to win as much support as possible for passage. A final vote was expected in the late afternoon or early evening.

“This legislation at long last begins to break our addiction to foreign oil and put us on the path to energy security,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, when kicking off Friday’s debate.

Fightin’ words

The stakes of the legislative struggle over the bill were revealed in the stark language used by both opponents and supporters.

Republicans charged that the bill amounts to the largest tax increase in American history, which if passed would body slam the US economy back into deep recession.

“The [energy bill] promises to destroy our standard of living,” said Rep. Frank Lucas (R) of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee.

Democratic supporters said in contrast that the legislation would create hundreds of thousands of new green industry jobs, while beginning to wean the nation off imported petroleum and curbing greenhouse-gas emissions that would otherwise pollute the world for generations to come.

“This is the most important energy and environment legislation to ever have been considered in the history of the United States,” said Rep. Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Cap-and-trade is the key mechanism

The complex energy bill is already more than 1,200 pages long. It would impose limits on the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that power plants, factories, and other industrial applications could produce.

The US would be forced to cut such emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and by 80 percent in the next century.

A so-called cap-and-trade system would be the means of this reduction. Under cap-and-trade, the US government would distribute emissions allowances that could be bought and sold, depending on whether a particular facility produced fewer gas emissions than allowed or wanted to pay to produce more.

Costs are in dispute

At the heart of the fierce debate over the bill is its possible effect on the pocketbooks of individual Americans.

Democratic leaders said the bill’s effects would be modest, and they pointed to recent Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional Budget Office studies as proof.

“This is going to cost American consumers about $175 [apiece] per year,” said Rep. John Dingell (D) of Michigan, a former Energy and Commerce Committee chief.

Republicans, pointing to higher energy costs that would ripple through the economy, say that the price to consumers is impossible to predict and in all likelihood will amount to far more than Democrats believe.

GOP members also insisted that is foolish for the US to attempt such greenhouse-gas emission reductions in a geopolitical context in which China, India, and other developing nations refuse to undertake similar actions.

“I will not make my constituents poorer so that others can get richer at their expense,” said Representative Lucas.

A handful of moderate and conservative Democrats, many from agricultural states, could provide the margin of victory or defeat for the energy/climate legislation.

( More politics stories )

Comments

1. Teacher | 06.26.09

Please call DC and tell them to STOP these power grabs!

Obama federalizes your life, then hands it to the world bankers.

Instant World Government
Loss of Freedom

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. Patrick Henry | 06.26.09

This is all about redistribution of wealth. From the Earth Charter:

10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.

a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

That is what your having shoved down your throat America. China won’t reduce carbon emissions and American jobs will fly offshore.

The lunatics are running the asylum.

3. JG | 06.26.09

Actually higher energy costs may be a good thing. As companies are given incentives to reduce the amount of carbon-based pollution they emit, alternative energy will become economically feasible. As alternative energy becomes economically feasible for companies, the same technology can be used to make alternative energy feasible for automobiles. As alternative energy becomes feasible for automobiles we will begin to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As such we will spend less money as time goes on because oil production rates have peaked and once the economy picks up again oil will once again skyrocket.

So it is better to raise the price of carbon-based energy now, under human control, than it is to suffer high prices under the control of nature.

4. John Locke | 06.26.09

The Federal Government has rebelled against its people and violated our constitution. It is our duty to overthrow this rebel regime that infringes our pursuit of happiness per John Locke. We the people are not the rebels, the government is the rebel. When the people are no longer represented, the government has no legal authority to govern.

5. West Chicago | 06.26.09

This is a shameful and inexcusable power grab, again at the expense of the American people. This administration will not stop until they’ve brought Americans to their knees. This ENERGY BILL is a hidden income tax that will drive our costs to drive and heat our homes to astronomical proportions. What do the President and Congress care. They will all this fun money to spend…WASTE!. I’ve had it and recommend voting straight Republican going forward in the National, State and even local elections.
Signed,
Angry as hell!!!

6. David L. | 06.30.09

It is not about “power grabs” it’s about the environment, job creation and switching from dirty fuels to clean renewable energy.

And for those of you so opposed to this plan, I have one question, what is your plan for creating new industries(and jobs) here in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Leave a Comment

  By clicking "Submit Comment", you agree to our Terms of Service.

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.