House passes climate change bill

The House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey) by a vote of 219 to 212, with forty-four Democrats voting against the measure and eight Republicans voting yes (Only seven Republicans voted for the stimulus).

The bill’s success can be attributed to the efforts key figures, such as former VP Al Gore, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the president himself.  Unfortunately, a number of compromises were made along the way.  ACES’s sponsors, Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), reduced carbon cap goals and added favors for polluting industries, in the form of free offsets.

In its current form, the ACES sets a goal of 17 percent GHG reduction by 2020 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. It also continues the process begun by Obama’s stimulus — switching to alternative energy and cleaner technologies, as well as introducing more efficient building standards.

Some environmental voices, such as Greenpeace, have opposed the bill (or at least voiced concerns) because of its giveaways to big industries and its support for carbon capture and storage.  In addition, the goal of 17 percent GHG cut by 2020 is not as strong as it should be.

Waxman-Markey is far from perfect, but it is definitely better than nothing.  It needs to be strengthened, but if something resembling it doesn’t pass in the next few months, we won’t get another chance before December.  And if the U.S. doesn’t have strong energy regulations by the Copenhagen talks, it will be harder to convince China and India to pass their own.

In order to stabilize CO2 levels, we need a WWII-scale effort from everybody, not just lawmakers.  Clean, sustainable society is a vision we can achieve — and must achieve in the next few decades.  Waxman-Markey is a first step (and it still needs to pass the Senate), but we still have a long way to go.

How much will the House climate bill cost you?

Over the last few months, we have seen a momentous struggle: climate versus economy.  While scientists warn that we must accept the “inconvenient truth” of global warming and cut emissions, whatever the cost is, others are unsure.  The economy is certainly not at its most robust right now, and the risk of troubling it further makes voters and representatives hesitate.

Thus, economic impact has been the GOP’s main argument against the Democrats’ plan to cut GHG emissions.  This is one of the talking points for the Republican American Energy Act:

The Democrats’ answer to the worst recession in decades is a national energy tax that will lead to higher energy prices and further job losses.

Joe Boehner and and Michelle Bachmann even projected a cost of $3,128 to $4,000 per household (a figure produced through a 10 times inflation from ignoring offsetting credits).  But two new reports reveal drastically lower economic impacts.

On June 19th, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report estimating that the average yearly cost of the Waxman-Markey climate bill would be $175 per household, with a increase of $245 for the highest income bracket and $40 savings for the poorest 20%.

A recent EPA analysis estimated that the bill would actually lower household energy costs by 2020:

As a result of energy efficiency measures, consumer spending on utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the legislation.

An entry on Climate Progress puts it well:

We don’t have to just wish we were there — we can have a clean energy economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA’s analysis does not “take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.”

This news will hopefully smooth the way for the ACES to pass the House this Friday.  If you live in the U.S., please consider asking your representative to support the bill.  As for the rest of the world, keep your fingers crossed, because American green politics affects you as well.