Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Injin

Climate-change Bill Clears U.s. House, Sent To Senate

Recommended Posts

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=awDkTNzaVl.E

June 27 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. House narrowly passed legislation to impose the nation’s first limits on greenhouse- gas emissions linked to global warming, handing President Barack Obama a win on one of his top policy priorities.

The 219-212 House vote yesterday signaled the fight that lies ahead in the Senate for the plan, which would create a market for trading pollution permits to curb emissions.

Obama called the measure “a bold and necessary step that holds the promise of creating new industry and millions of new jobs.†The bill, he said, would usher in “a critical transition to a clean-energy economy without untenable burdens on the American people.â€

House Republicans, who formed the bulk of the opposition to the bill, disputed that characterization. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the measure “an unrealistic approach that could further harm the economy and shed American jobs.â€

Pollution-cap advocates last night praised the House action even as they vowed to push for rewrites of some key provisions.

“This should be a huge wake-up call,†Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said in an interview. “We should not have had to have a bill this weak to pass by this narrow a margin.â€

The American Clean Energy and Security Act calls for the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. It would establish a limited number of pollution permits, more than 70 percent of which would initially be given away free to utilities, manufacturers, state governments and others, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The permits could then be traded or sold.

The bill’s chief sponsors -- House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat -- agreed to reduce the plan’s environmental mandates and increase aid to polluters, including coal-fired power plants, to help companies meet the measure’s clean-air regulations. The strategy was necessary to amass the votes needed to pass the bill.

“The Senate is now going to see it’s possible to do this legislation†by balancing competing interests and building “coalitions of environmentalists and industry to support it,†Waxman said in an interview.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the measure would cost an average of $175 a year per household.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

On the plus side, if it does pass, the Dumbocrats are toast. Increasing taxes that will hit the poor particularly hard, during a serious global recession, is an utterly insane policy... particularly when it's based on pure ********.

Wonder how much the Chinese must have paid them to get this through?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you vote for something that starts out at 200 pages long and then the final version which is only available one hour before the vote is 1600 pages long? Anyone else think a few time bombs ticking in this document?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The time bomb is only for the devloped world. On the basis that if the yanks legislate it then I think the rest of the west will to. Thats only 20% of the world. This 20% will be shafted and the oppoeite will happen for the other 80% even if the west introduces green tariffs. Investment, economic growth and prosperity will flow to the non carbon trading scheme countries.

Time bomb is the right term if the US is to meet its targets by 2050 it will have the same amount of CO2 as was emitted in the 19th century. The only good think about the good old days is that they are gone forever.

Probably have similar industry too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.