Democratic support for climate bill broadens
Several key Democrats from industrial and oil states threw their support behind a draft climate bill Monday as a House committee began work on massive legislation that would impose the first nationwide limits on greenhouse gases.
While Democratic sponsors of the 948-page bill called it essential to shift the nation away from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources and deal with global warming, Republicans argued it would send energy prices soaring and threaten economic growth.
"Our nation is at a crossroads," declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the committee's chairman "We can continue to look the other way and leave these problems to our children, or we can adopt a new energy policy for America."
Waxman in recent weeks has spearheaded delicate closed-door negotiations with other Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee, hoping to structure the bill so as to get enough support to push it to the House floor, despite expected unified Republican opposition.
The negotiations appeared to bear fruit when two key Democrats on the committee _ Reps. John Dingell of Michigan and Gene Green of Texas _ announced their support of the bill. Last week, Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., who has had protection of coal interests a priority, also endorsed the legislation.
Dingell, the longtime and ardent protector of the U.S. automakers, said he still has some concerns, but that generally the compromises have produced "a good bill" he can support. The bill includes several provisions Dingell wanted including a "cash for clunker" automobiles measure and allowances to help automakers invest in electric vehicles.
Green had sought help for the oil industry, which is prominent in his state, and got enough to bring him on board. He said the bill provides help for refiners during the transition toward greater use of nonfossil fuels. Democrats also stripped away a provision that would have required refiners to meet a mandatory low-carbon motor fuel standard.
"The United States can either chose to ignore the climate threat ... or it can act. Today we choose to act," said Green.
The bill would establish a limit on greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels by power plants, refineries and factories. Such emissions would have to be 17 percent lower by 2020, compared to 2005 emissions, and 83 percent lower by midcentury.
To ease the economic impact, the government would issue pollution allowances, or permits, that could be traded on the open market. About 85 percent of those allowances in the early years are to be provided free by the government to ease the cost of the emission reductions.
Republicans, nevertheless, have characterized the "cap-and-trade" approach as tantamount to a massive energy tax because it would make energy from fossil fuels _ especially electricity produced from burning coal _ more expensive.
"We are putting the entire American economy ... through an absolute economic wringer," declared Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the committee's ranking Republican.
Barton complained that the cost issue and how emission allowances would be distributed haven't been given a full airing. "We do know ... the cost is going to be astronomical," he said.
Barton promised later in the week a Republican alternative that scraps the cap-and-trade approach while providing incentives for industry to develop clean energy without mandated emission reductions.
Waxman argued that pitting economic growth against clean energy "is a false choice" used by Republicans to scuttle climate legislation. The redirection of the nation's energy policies "will revitalize our economy," create clean energy jobs, reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil and address climate change, he maintained.
The climate bill has been the subject of intense closed-door negotiations to try to ease the concerns of Democratic lawmakers worried about the impact of the emission limits on energy-intensive industries in their states. Those discussions produced a bill that calls for 85 percent of emission allowances to be given away by the government, instead of sold by auction as favored by President Barack Obama.
Electric utilities would get 35 percent of the allowances. Along with several other provisions including a promise of billions of dollars for developing carbon capture technology, produced Boucher's support.
But not all Democrats are on board
Rep. John Barrow of Georgia, one of the committee's Democratic moderates who are known as Blue Dogs, said he was worried about cost to consumers. "Making dirty energy more expensive doesn't make any clean energy," said Barrow. "Meanwhile, folks back home will end up paying more than they have to for dirty energy and they won't necessarily have any more clean energy to show for it."
Republicans have promised dozens of amendments and Democrats are expected to have a few as well. A final committee vote on the bill is not likely until near week's end.
___
On the Net
Congress:
House Energy and Commerce Committee:
http://energycommerce.house.gov
Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
