Hmm... I wonder how many jobs will be created by increased investment in domestic energy production. This bill is way more about national security and weening the US off of foreign oil than climate change. If that costs more than I am willing to pay the price. The US needs to lead the field in developing new renewable energy technology. Oil is NOT an unlimited commodity... as a country, we consume more than 25% of the worlds energy. That just isn't sustainable... I think that the bill that is produced in the Senate won't look like the House bill. There are alot of things in it that will be changed... but I think it will pass because it is something we have to do. I also think cap and trade is the right approach because it encourages companies to produce cleaner energy products and creates an investment economy to provide the funds to do so. The key thing that I think that the opposition is ignoring is that just as many companies GAIN from this legislation as lose and even alot of the very companies it is purported to damage support the legislation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090519
Quote:
WASHINGTON, May 19 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP)
- a diverse coalition of leading businesses and environmental NGOs - today
issued the following statement regarding the American Clean Energy and
Security Act being considered in the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) commends Chairmen Waxman and
Markey, and other Members of the Committee, for their strong leadership in
preparing the way for enactment of climate protection legislation.
USCAP believes the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA)
broadly embraces the approach recommended in the USCAP Blueprint for
Legislative Action that we issued in January 2009.
While not every USCAP recommendation is contained in ACESA, USCAP urges the
full Committee to advance the bill so Congress can continue to build on the
progress made by the Committee thus far.
As USCAP has indicated, there are several key linked issues that must fit
together to ensure a climate protection program is environmentally effective,
economically sustainable and fair. In some instances, that does not occur in
this legislation. Additionally, the bill covers topics not addressed in the
Blueprint or in some cases is more detailed than the USCAP recommendations.
Individual USCAP members will continue to work with Congress to address these
matters in a satisfactory manner. However, USCAP urges the Committee to vote
to report the bill out this week so that legislation can move forward while
these improvements are being pursued.
Again, we want to thank Chairmen Waxman and Markey for their efforts. The
process they have engaged in has resulted in a bill that strives to balance
competing interests. It puts the nation on a path to achieve significant and
necessary greenhouse gas emission reductions, while protecting consumers and
advancing new technologies that will lead the transition to a lower carbon
economy.
More information about the Blueprint for Legislative Action and USCAP can be
found at www.us-cap.org
USCAP Members:
- Alcoa - Boston Scientific - BP America - Caterpillar - Chrysler -
ConocoPhillips - John Deere - Dow - Duke Energy - DuPont - Environmental
Defense Fund - Exelon - Ford - FPL Group - GE - GM - Johnson & Johnson -
Natural Resources Defense Council - The Nature Conservancy - NRG Energy -
PepsiCo - Pew Center on Global Climate Change - PG&E - PNM Resources - Rio
Tinto - Shell - Siemens - World Resources Institute
SOURCE U.S. Climate Action Partnership
|
http://www.us-cap.org/blueprint/overview.asp
Quote:
Cap-and-Trade System Design
We believe the strongest way to achieve our emission reduction goals is a federal cap-and-trade program coupled with cost containment measures and complementary policies for technology research, development and deployment, clean coal technology deployment, lower-carbon transportation technologies and systems, and improved energy efficiency in buildings, industry and appliances. In a cap-and-trade system, one allowance would be created for each ton of GHG emissions allowed under the declining economy-wide emission reduction targets (the ?cap?). Emitters would be required to turn in one allowance for each ton of GHG they emit. Those emitters who can reduce their emissions at the lowest cost would have to buy fewer allowances and may have extra allowances to sell to remaining emitters for whom purchasing allowances is their most cost-effective way of meeting their compliance obligation. This allows the economy-wide emission reduction target to be achieved at the lowest possible cost.
|
These are major US corporations that are backing this bill because they see the necessity and the economic potential in doing so.