U.S. Senate Bill Would Cap Greenhouse Gas Emissions ( Lieberman and McCain sponsors)

Environment news service ^ | January 8, 2003 | Cat Lazaroff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

WASHINGTON, DC, January 8, 2003 (ENS) - A bipartisan bill introduced in a U.S. Senate hearing today would attempt to curb global warming by establishing a market based trading system in greenhouse gas emissions. The bill, the first major piece of environmental legislation to be introduced in the 108th Congress, was met with rousing endorsements from the conservation community.

Senators Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, and John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said their bill would spur innovation by giving companies maximum flexibility in meeting national greenhouse gas emissions goals.

Senator Joe Lieberman (Photo courtesy Office of Senator Lieberman)

"By capping emissions and tapping market forces to meet those goals, this bill will heat up American innovation and cool down our changing climate," Lieberman said. "Our approach promises environmental progress in reducing harmful global warming, economic progress by creating new high-tech jobs to meet emissions goals, and international progress by showing our allies that we're serious about this global problem."

The bill, which will be formally introduced soon, was the subject of a hearing today in the Senate Commerce Committee, which McCain will soon chair. The legislation, which is modeled after the successful acid rain trading program of the 1990 Clean Air Act, would require a reduction to 2000 carbon dioxide emission levels by the year 2010, and a reduction to 1990 levels by the year 2016.

Senator John McCain (Photo courtesy Office of Senator McCain)

"Too much attention has been focused on the uncertainties, and not enough on what is known in tackling the problem at hand," McCain said. "This bill uses the best approach we know - a market based trading system - to reduce emissions and give companies maximum flexibility in meeting requirements. Ultimately, the bill rewards improvements in energy efficiency and encourages advances in technologies."

McCain and Lieberman began work on the legislation in August 2001. The bill creates a comprehensive cap on greenhouse gas pollution, paired with an allowance trading system aimed at reducing the costs of meeting the caps while offering a range of opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas pollution and boosting the uptake of carbon by soils, crops and trees.

The bill "marks an end to stalling and the start of the search for serious solutions to the global warming problem," said Fred Krupp, president of the conservation group Environmental Defense.

"The bill's cap on greenhouse gas pollution takes on the problem of global warming in a strong and sensible way," added Krupp. "The bill's cost lowering emissions trading market will cut more dangerous pollution than traditional bureaucratic approaches and promote innovation while spurring American economic growth."

REP America, the national grassroots organization of Republicans for Environmental Protection praised the legislation today. "Finally, someone in Washington DC is exercising the thoughtful leadership we urgently need to combat the threat global warming poses to our environment, economy, and long term security. We're not surprised that someone is John McCain, who has never been afraid to tackle the big issues of our time," said Jim DiPeso, REP America policy director.

But the nonprofit Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative public policy group that seeks to limit government interference with "free enterprise," calls the bill "a regressive energy tax," that would "place an enormous burden on the U.S."

While the bill will likely be supported in McCain's Commerce Committee, and is touted by its authors as an economic bill more than an environmental bill, it will face tough opposition from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, whose new chair, Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, opposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Power plants and other industries that emit more than 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year. (Photo by Carole Swinehart, courtesy Michigan Sea Extension)

The bill would apply to emissions from the electricity generation, petroleum refining, industrial and commercial economic sectors, which together account for 85 percent of overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It would apply to all entities that emit more than 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year, and therefore would not apply to individual car owners, homeowners or the agricultural sector.

The bill is designed to reduce emissions by allowing the trading of emissions allowances on the open market, supported by a government inventory of emissions and emission reductions for individual companies and utilities. Most companies would be required to submit one tradable allowance for each metric ton of greenhouse gasses they emit, while petroleum refiners and importers would have to submit an allowance for each unit of petroleum product sold that will produce a metric ton of emissions.

The Commerce Secretary would determine the number of emissions allowances each company would receive free of charge, and how many would be auctioned off. Proceeds from the auction of these allowances would be used to reduce the energy costs of consumers and assist workers affected by the new policy.

Companies could buy and sell credits among themselves, and could satisfy up to 15 percent of its emission reduction requirements by submitting tradeable allowances from another nation's market in greenhouse gases, or by contributing to projects that sequester carbon dioxide emissions.

Automakers could earn credits by increasing the average fuel efficiency of the vehicles they sell. (Photo courtesy National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Automakers could earn credits that they could sell to other companies if they exceeded the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by more than 20 percent. The CAFE standards spell out the average number of miles per gallon that a manufacturer's vehicles must achieve. Many automakers now meet this standard by offering a small number of very efficient vehicles, such as electric or hybrid gasoline-electric cars, to offset the poor efficiency performance of popular sport utility vehicles and other large vehicles.

Any company that failed to meet the emissions limits set by the bill would be fined for each ton of greenhouse gases over the cap at the rate of three times the market value of a ton of greenhouse gas. The market value would be based upon the price of emission credits from trading system provided for in the bill.

Companies would have the economic choice of reducing their emissions to reduce their required allowances, or purchasing other companies' allowances to cover their continued emissions. Companies that have voluntarily undertaken efforts to reduce their greenhouse gases would receive credit for those actions.

The "cap and trade" approach, which is expected to be adopted by Japan, the European Union, and other parties that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, is supported by the environmental community and the independent Pew Center on Global Climate Change. The approach has successfully reduced the emissions of acid rain causing pollutants through a program established in the 1990 Clean Air Act.

So far, the Bush administration has declined to embrace a "cap and trade" concept, or offer any kind of plan that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. President George W. Bush has also withdrawn U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol, an adjunct to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which will become law when a minimum of 55 countries covering at least 55 percent of 1990 greenhouse gas emissions have ratified the pact.

The announcement of the new emissions trading bill was seen by conservation groups as a sign that the Bush administration's past policy toward global warming will be challenged, even under the Republican controlled Congress.

Recent studies show the planet's surface temperature is already warming. (Photo courtesy Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Environmental Energy Technologies Division)

"It's encouraging to see real action on the environment by senior statesmen so early in the new Congress," said Katherine Silverthorne, deputy director of the U.S. climate change program at the World Wildlife Fund. "The McCain-Lieberman bill could jump start U.S. policy on global warming."

The two senators worked with both industry and conservation groups as they designed the legislation, attempting to craft an approach that would address the concerns of American businesses while taking positive steps toward reducing global warming.

"This effort to solve global warming puts to rest all the excuses for doing nothing: This bill is bipartisan, it achieves environmental goals by encouraging innovation and American ingenuity, and its flexible approach is supported by industry," said Mark Van Putten, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "This is an opportunity for Congress to provide responsible environmental leadership where the White House has failed."

Global warming is a growing problem, with 2002 closing as the second warmest year on record. The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1987, with nine of them happening since 1990.

Two studies in the current edition of the journal "Nature" show that global warming is already posing a threat to a variety of plants and animals, and other research suggests that the sea ice around the Earth's poles could melt entirely by the end of this century.

"We are already beginning to see the environmental impacts of global warming coast to coast, from coral reef bleaching in the Caribbean to the loss of treasured pine forests in coastal Alaska," said Van Putten. "Each year we procrastinate makes the problem harder to solve."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Global Warming Hoax :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Global Warming Hoax , click below:
	click here >>>	Global Warming Hoax	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Michael.SF.]

A bipartisan bill introduced in a U.S. Senate hearing today .....Sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, and John McCain...

I don't get it, I thought it was Bi partisan? (sarcasim off)

[Carry_Okie]

Idiots.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

As much as I don't want global warming to be true, there is always the "what if" factor. I am seriously doubtful that it will be as bad as the left would have us beleive. But the logic that if you double the amount of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere that the earth will warm seems fairly sound.

There is little doubt that with glaciers melting and weather patterns changing, the earth is going through a period of climate change. The question is really whether man's activities are causing it. I don't think it is a risk worth taking ifthere is something we can do about it.

Besides, If implementing a bill like this makes us more independent of Middle East oil regardless of whether it is good for the planet or not, it is good for the US. Moreover, it won't hurt in terms of improving our image with the rest of the world.

This type of legislation is going to happen eventually whether or not we want it. So, let's get the thing in there while there is a reasonable man at the top and not wait for a RAT regime to shove something down our throats.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Once all the posturing and rhetoric is cut away . . .

The bill would seem to be an attempt to curb emmissions, which in and of itself is not bad. I would need to read through the provisions (and check the costs!!), before I would endorse it, but we should never outright oppose a plan just because the enviro-wackos support it! If the claim in the article is true, that "industry" was actually consulted (and at least marginally approves), we should look at the merits of it and then decide.

[Outraged At FLA]

Yeah, the ice is melting, so what? If we had been keeping records for the last say, 50 million years, and our climate was out of whack, I would then consider it. But all geo evidence of our past climate shows wild shifts in both directions.

[SeeRushToldU_So]

This would be a good one to veto. Bush hasn't vetoed diddly squat yet. This would be a good start.

[Unknown Freeper]

This bill is more important than judges?

[An.American.Expatriate]

That's not the point. Whether or not the "Green House Gases" are causing global warming (or if it is even occuring at all) is not the reason I would support a reduction. I would support a reduction simply because, in this case, less is better. Or do you think it's okay to pump out more and more potential pollutants just because we haven't found evidence yet that shows they are harmful? If the plan suggested in this bill is "reasonable", I see no reason to disaprove. I would only qualify that with the need to actually read the provisions before passing judgement (isn't that what we preach?).

[Mustard Plaster]

Feel good Legislation like this brings two questions to my mind:
How much will it cost?
Could the money be put to better use somewhere else?
We already know who is going to pay for it. The public always pays in either higher taxes or higher prices.

[white trash redneck]

McInsane and Loserman - the usual suspects.

[need_a_screen_name]

But the logic that if you double the amount of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere that the earth will warm seems fairly sound.

CO2 is measured in parts per million. The increase in CO2 over the last decades is only an increase of a couple oh hundred parts per million. It is almost nonsensical to think that could have ANY affect whatsoever. The whole man made global warming claim is totally bogus.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

CO2 is measured in parts per million. The increase in CO2 over the last decades is only an increase of a couple oh hundred parts per million. It is almost nonsensical to think that could have ANY affect whatsoever. The whole man made global warming claim is totally bogus.

That is about as dumb or naive a statment as I have heard in a long time.

I would be happy to give you some harmelss food and water that just happens to have a couple of parts of cyanide per million. Strange thing is that if I were to double from say 200 to 400, you might die. Otherwise, you liver will take care of it.

Or, why don't I place you in an environment that has 1 part of plutionium per billion. Let's see how well you do.

You obviously haven't the slightest clue about chemstry. But

[Grampa Dave]

There is no need for a veto.

This bill will never make it out of both houses.

This is just a love note from Jino LIEberman and McAinal as they signal the Watermelon Jihadists of America that they want their money and support for the 2004 campaign. We will see this miserable twosome co sponsoring a lot of trash before 2004. McAinal still may run as a rat.

We will see several of these love notes from the house and the senate between now and early 2004 from rats and rinos to the Watermelons. None of them have a snowball chance in hell of making it through both houses.

See my tag line of what we need to do between now and through the elections of 2004.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

make that plutonium

[need_a_screen_name]

Total strawman argument! Cyanide is not CO2! LOL We are talking about an inert gas that has such a low concentration in the atmosphere that it is measured in a few hundreds parts per MILLION. The increase reported is probably within the margin of error of the measuring equipment. By listening to the global warming hoaxers on TV and elsewhere, you would think that the planet is awash in CO2. The fact is that it is only a very tiny tiny percentage of the whole. An increase of a couple of hundreds parts per million (200/1,000,000) is not worthy of even taking note of. A more likely scenario is that the sun is simply going through a cycle where it is on a warming trend.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Just put your fingers back in your ears and keep on humming and hope everything will be alright.

Just because you say an argument is invalid doesn't make it so. I will assume that you skipped many a high school chemistry class. That is, if you ever made it to high school.

[need_a_screen_name]

Ah, ad homs.... the last resort for bankrupt arguments ;)

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Billy Joel aid it the best when he sang "you can never argue with a crazy man . . ."