Passage of climate-change bill a landmark achievement
Yesterday’s House passage of cap-and-trade legislation designed to confront climate change is a landmark achievement, the first tangible step taken by the country that emits more greenhouse gas per capita than anyone in the world.
The bill itself still faces a tough test in the Senate. Passage is far from assured, and without similar actions by other major emitting countries, it won’t mean much. But it does finally demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States is prepared to do its part, which puts the pressure on them to follow suit.
The bill itself, the product of a thousand political compromises, also isn’t perfect. But it also isn’t what its hysterical opponents claim it is. As Bryan Walsh acknowledges in Time:
… critics have vastly overstated the likely cost. In fact, they’re all but lying. During the House debate, Republican whip Eric Cantor, using numbers from an American Petroleum Institute study, said that the bill would eventually cost more than $3,000 per family per year — but those numbers assume that billions of tons worth of inexpensive carbon offsets won’t be available under the bill, which would significantly inflate the overall cost. That’s not going to happen. A more reliable study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast that the bill would cost the average U.S. household $175 in higher energy costs annually by 2020 — and other studies estimate that the energy-efficiency provisions in the bill might even save Americans money over time.
When opponents are forced to lie so blatantly — in this case exaggerating the likely cost 17 times over — they don’t have much of an honest argument.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
201 comments Add your comment
Michael L. Wagner
June 30th, 2009
10:41 pm
See—the thing is—there is no method of “greening” Coal-fired Power Plants…
So…, instead…, the Climate Bill channels BILLIONS of dollars to the fantasy that is called Clean Coal, such that King Coal makes out like a bandit, while the consumer pays and pays…
Here Read:
+ The illusion of clean coal / The Economist:
–“The world is investing too much cash and hope in carbon capture and storage.”
+ Trouble in store—Carbon capture and storage / The Economist,
+ The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal / BusinessWeek,
+ The Dirt on Clean Coal / The Nation
+ King Coal’s Latest Con Job—Clean Coal is Not Clean / CommonDreams,
+ The ‘Clean Coal’ Lobbying Blitz / The Center for Public Integrity:
+Clean Coal / Wikipedia:
“… scrubbers will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases: Scrubbers remove some particulates, SO2 , Hg(2+) , and SO3 – pollution that causes smog – but they will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.”
–“They’re the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a collection of 48 mining, rail, manufacturing, and power-generating companies with an annual budget of more than $45 million — almost three times larger than the coal industry’s old lobbying and public relations groups combined.”
+ Clean Coal or Dirty Coal? / Alternative Energy Blog:
–“… Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal company spent over 5% of its revenues on political contributions, for comparison Exxon Mobil and General Motors spent a fraction of one percent. In seeming return for such generosity, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included five billion dollars of subsidies for the coal industry.”
+Stimulus Money Puts Clean Coal Projects on a Faster Track / NY Times:
–“The allocation of $3.4 billion in the federal stimulus bill for carbon capture and sequestration, as carbon storage is often called, however, has allowed Duke Energy and other companies to consider mounting full-scale projects.”
+ Climate Change Protection, or Climate Change Assurance? / Bloggers for Change:
–“… the 1,200-page bill would also devote $60 billion to making sure clean coal isn’t a loser.”
+ The Case Against Carbon Trading / Transnational Institute:
–”… Citigroup’s Peter Atherton confessed that the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme had ‘done nothing to curb emissions.’ He admitted, … Prices up, emissions up, profits up …’ Who wins and loses? Coal and nuclear-based generators–biggest winners. Hedge funds and energy traders–even bigger winners. Losers … Consumers!”
+ Why China Could Blame Its CO2 on West / WSJ, 11/12/07:
–”If you have emission constraints, it’s become very attractive to relocate dirty production to developing countries … You import the finished goods, and leave the pollution in China.”
+ Nuclear Saviors: How Global Warming And Al Gore May Rescue the Nuclear Power Industry / CounterPunch:
–the financial stakes are staggering—“American companies, such as GE, CBS Corp (formerly Westinghouse) and Bechtel, desperately crave those multi-billion dollar contracts.”
+ Nuclear’s CO2 cost ‘will climb’ / BBC News, 04/30/08.
–”The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.”
+ Integrity in the Balance: Al Gore’s Record On the Environment / CorpWatch:
“Terri Swearingen has heard enough of Al Gore’s promises on the environment. “There may be some that believe he is a premier environmentalist, but not me,” says the forty-three year old registered nurse and mother.”
“For nearly a decade, Swearingen has watched as the children of her quaint, working-class town in the Ohio river valley grow sicker and sicker. ‘It seems like every day we hear of a new cancer,’ she says. ‘Our children are getting cancer at a rate forty percent above the national average. In the past six months we’ve had two children develop a rare form of eye cancer. Do you know how unlikely that is for a town of our size?’
“In a campaign stop in Ohio, then-vice presidential candidate Al Gore blasted the incinerator as an “unbelievable” idea and promised outraged environmentalists that the Clinton/Gore team would ‘be on your side for a change.’”
“He followed up his pledge with an official press release calling for ‘a thorough investigation’ because ‘too many questions remain unanswered about the impact of this incinerator and the process by which it was approved.’”
“But that was Al Gore the candidate. And in those heady days of the election campaign, he probably didn’t realize that one of the financiers of the incinerator was none other than an investment banker from Little Rock, Arkansas, named Jack Stephens. Not only does Stephens finance incinerators, he finances politicians, including the Clinton/Gore campaign to the tune of $100,000 in 1992.”
“A bank subsidiary of his company even extended the campaign a $3.5 million credit line. Not surprisingly after the election, Gore quickly dropped the incinerator issue-and the plant continues to operate despite repeated failures of quality control tests. Gore has also remained silent on an on-going grand jury investigation into allegations that employees of the North Ohio Valley Air Authority accepted bribes to find the plant in compliance with environmental restrictions.”
In fact, the Magnetic Levitation Wind Turbine simply uses PERMANENT MAGNETS to provide power equal to a small Nuclear Power Plant—at a tiny fraction of the price-tag…
The MagLev’s low-center-of-gravity = perfect for offshore = areas surrounding the US = 24/7!!!
And the MagLev’s low friction = operates off of wind as slow as 3 mph!!!
Here Read:
+ Popular Science’s 20th Annual Best of What’s New Awards / Nanosolar Homepage:
–This honor goes to the remarkably designed PowerSheet flexible solar cells. Imagine a solar panel without the panel. Nanosolar has created an ink that takes sunlight and converts it into electricity. The ink is coated onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil with a printing-press-like device. The sheets are lighter, inexpensive and as efficient as traditional solar panels. The editors of PopSci believe that eventually every commercial rooftop could be carpeted with PowerSheet solar cells.”
Wind/Solar could make very clean Hydrogen for “rainy days.”
Of course, the distribution problem with Hydrogen Cars is not a problem with Hydrogen Power plants, nor with Hydrogen Jumbo Jets…