Cap & Trade Passes House 219 to 212

[Falkenhayn]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31565446/ns ... vironment/

Cleaner, costlier climate bill slips past House
Obama, Democrats face difficult test in upcoming Senate vote
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 8:07 p.m. ET, Fri., June 26, 2009

WASHINGTON - In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that establishes the United States' first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.

The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs.

The House's action fulfilled Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vow to clear major energy legislation before July 4 and sent the measure to a highly uncertain fate in the Senate.

Obama lobbied recalcitrant Democrats by phone from the White House as the debate unfolded across several hours, and Al Gore posted a statement on his Web site saying the measure represents "an essential first step toward solving the climate crisis." The former vice president shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing attention to the destructive potential of global warming.

On the House floor, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy problems.

It is "the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country," said Democratic Rep. Ed Markey. "It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and toward a path of clean American energy."

Minority leader calls bill a 'nightmare'
But Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, used an extraordinary one-hour speech shortly before the final vote to warn of unintended consequences in what he said was a "defining bill." He called it a "bureaucratic nightmare" that would cost jobs, depress real estate prices and put the government into parts of the economy where it now has no role.

The legislation would require a 17 percent reduction by 2020 in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in the United States from 2005 levels and by about 80 percent by mid-century. That was slightly more aggressive than Obama originally wanted, 14 percent by 2020 and the same 80 percent by mid-century.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory limits.

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and issue allowances for polluters. Most of the allowances would be given away, but about 15 percent would be auctioned by bid and the proceeds used to defray higher energy costs for lower-income individuals and families.

"Some would like to do more. Some would like to do less," House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said before the final vote. "But we have reached a compromise ... and it is a compromise that can pass this House, pass that Senate, be signed by the president and become law and make progress."

One of the biggest compromises involved the near total elimination of an administration plan to sell pollution permits and raise more than $600 billion over a decade, which would be used to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut. About 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold in a concession to energy companies and their allies in the House, and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate.

The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others.

Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports, one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency, that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.

Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies that predicted much higher costs to the economy and to individuals.

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of "green jobs" as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles to move away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.

Pelosi, D-Calif., took an intense personal interest in the measure, sitting through hours of meetings with members of the rank and file and nurturing fragile compromises.

At its heart, the bill was a trade-off, less than the White House initially sought though it was more than Republicans said was acceptable. Some of the dealmaking had a distinct political feel. Rep. Alan Grayson, a first-term Democrat, won a pledge of support that $50 million from the proceeds of pollution permit sales in the bill would go to a proposed new hurricane research facility in his district in Orlando, Fla.

"This is revolutionary. This is a moment in history," declared Markey, a co-sponsor of the bill.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

[Erik von Nein]

Some reasons why Waxman-Markey won't work well at all:

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2 ... a.php#more

Yes, it's a blog, but it goes over the issue pretty well.

There's something to be said for some legislation passing, though it might lead to a "Well, there we go. We've done something." attitude that will be just as damaging as the sort of non-action the bill demands.

[Guardsman Bass]

At least it's a milestone of sorts, considering what happened to previous climate legislation (most of which never got out of Committee). That said, I would have preferred a steep carbon tax (coupled with a much higher gasoline tax, since the transportation sector is a major part of emissions, and most of that is oil-driven) over cap-and-trade.

[D.Turtle]

This thing has to pass the Senate before anything happens, and that isn't likely. The Senate will pass some weak, useless, "bipartisan" bill and then the whole thing will head onto reconciliation. Whatever comes out of that is important.

[Beowulf]

Well, considering that apparently there was no actual copy of the final bill available when it was voted on, I refuse to believe that any member of the House actually has any clue what they actually voted on. It apparently was voted on in the form of a 1090 page bill, with a 300 page stack of amendments to that bill. Amendments that read like: "Page 15, beginning line 8, strike paragraph (11)...". Nevermind the fact that said 300 page stack of amendments was added at 3am on the night before voting.

[Starglider]

Gah. A fresh pile of pointless beurecracy with ridiculous implementation and compliance costs, to say nothing of the failings of the scheme itself. Has the US actually become incapable of passing legislation that isn't a cash cow for lawyers, accountants and no-bid contractors?

[Count Dooku]

Gah. A fresh pile of pointless beurecracy with ridiculous implementation and compliance costs, to say nothing of the failings of the scheme itself. Has the US actually become incapable of passing legislation that isn't a cash cow for lawyers, accountants and no-bid contractors?

Remember, most U.S. Congress people (I'm avoiding the male normative Congressman on purpose) don't understand economics or science that well, at all, and it doesn't matter which party you're talking about. None of them understand climate change very well at all, and I have my doubts that any really have an idea about how to go about tackling it. At least the Democrats are honest enough to admit the scientific community's stance, while Republicans push a blatant lie - 'the jury is still out'.

The real problem, from what I've seen, is the Democratic Party's base. Nuclear reactors are a fantastic way to get gobs of cheap and clean energy, but every time the subject comes up with my fairly liberal friends (and even well educated liberal family), they always go, 'ZOMG, but teh radiation is gunna leak into teh water supply!'. I always ask the mechanism by which this would happen, and they cite past examples of sticky situations involving nuclear power (never really getting the examples they're citing right). I ask why we'd use a system we know to be flawed, and they reply with nonsense.

As frustrating as that might be, it's a million times worse with my fiance's conservative family (both sides). They don't acknowledge that the issues of finite supplies of oil and global climate change even exist. They think the Palin 'drill baby drill' mentality will solve all the U.S.'s problems. The first (and only) time they brought it up, they said that Alaska could, alone, supply the U.S. with all it's oil for 130 years (don't know where they got that stat from), I pointed out that there's about 3 years of oil there (at best) if the state supplies all our oil needs.

All my personal examples really exemplify is that from what I've been able to gather, Americans on both sides are too stupid to understand the problems that face the world, and they sure as shit are too stupid to be entrusted with any solution. Canada? EU? Japan? Can we borrow you for a bit?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Gah. A fresh pile of pointless beurecracy with ridiculous implementation and compliance costs, to say nothing of the failings of the scheme itself. Has the US actually become incapable of passing legislation that isn't a cash cow for lawyers, accountants and no-bid contractors?

YES.

Dear god, yes we have.

The only real solution is a constitutional amendment which takes the power to draft bills out of the hands of the House and Senate and creates an appointed body of professionals who draft legislation for an up-or-down vote on it in both chambers, which cannot even author amendments.

[Big Phil]

Gah. A fresh pile of pointless beurecracy with ridiculous implementation and compliance costs, to say nothing of the failings of the scheme itself. Has the US actually become incapable of passing legislation that isn't a cash cow for lawyers, accountants and no-bid contractors?

YES.

Dear god, yes we have.

The only real solution is a constitutional amendment which takes the power to draft bills out of the hands of the House and Senate and creates an appointed body of professionals who draft legislation for an up-or-down vote on it in both chambers, which cannot even author amendments.

Oh for Christ's sake... are you honestly suggesting that 100 or 200 years ago Congress was as pure as the driven snow, and that only NOW have the become corrupt, money grubbing SOB's? Did you pay that little attention in history class?

[Starglider]

Oh for Christ's sake... are you honestly suggesting that 100 or 200 years ago Congress was as pure as the driven snow, and that only NOW have the become corrupt, money grubbing SOB's? Did you pay that little attention in history class?

Different modus operandi. Lawmakers have always been for sale, but it's only relatively recently that obfuscation has become the primary tool, both for hiding direct subsidies and generating income via needing an army of lawyers and consultants to actually comply with the legislation.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh for Christ's sake... are you honestly suggesting that 100 or 200 years ago Congress was as pure as the driven snow, and that only NOW have the become corrupt, money grubbing SOB's? Did you pay that little attention in history class?

We have NEVER had a Council of State with the sole power to draft legislation as a body in the United States. What made you think that?

[Adrian Laguna]

We have NEVER had a Council of State with the sole power to draft legislation as a body in the United States. What made you think that?

That's not the point. You were implying, even if not deliberately, that Congress being dysfunctional was a new thing. He was retorting that Congress has always been made-up of corrupt, unscrupulous, scum.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We have NEVER had a Council of State with the sole power to draft legislation as a body in the United States. What made you think that?

That's not the point. You were implying, even if not deliberately, that Congress being dysfunctional was a new thing. He was retorting that Congress has always been made-up of corrupt, unscrupulous, scum.

Yes, but it never retarded the economy with vast and byzantine pointless legislation before, instead it just enabled blatant bribery and caused occasional panics by collusion in major economic scandals.

[Big Phil]

We have NEVER had a Council of State with the sole power to draft legislation as a body in the United States. What made you think that?

That's not the point. You were implying, even if not deliberately, that Congress being dysfunctional was a new thing. He was retorting that Congress has always been made-up of corrupt, unscrupulous, scum.

Yes, but it never retarded the economy with vast and byzantine pointless legislation before, instead it just enabled blatant bribery and caused occasional panics by collusion in major economic scandals.

Sure, of course that's what you really meant.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Sure, of course that's what you really meant.

Whatever. If you bother to read the context of my post--a direct response to Starglider--it would be made clear by Starglider's comments:

Gah. A fresh pile of pointless beurecracy with ridiculous implementation and compliance costs, to say nothing of the failings of the scheme itself. Has the US actually become incapable of passing legislation that isn't a cash cow for lawyers, accountants and no-bid contractors?

I was directly responding to this statement and therefore my proposal was one directly suggested to fix the problem elucidated in it, that modern legislation is amended and massaged by countless lobbyists to turn it into a cash cow for lawyers, accountants, and no-bid contractors.

Stop looking for trouble, Sanchez.

[Big Phil]

Stop looking for trouble, Sanchez.

Stop playing the victim - you once again posted something that means one thing, then tried to claim it meant another, and now you're "clarifying" and telling us what you really meant to post, which is still incorrect. No-bid contracts and cash cow legislation is not a relatively recent phenomenon, it's been happening for centuries (at least in the USA). Government fucking with the economy is also not new - look at all the drama surrounding the creation of a central bank (during the Jackson administration); government defended slavery for years, despite its stranglehold on the economy and its roadblock to development. If you don't want me to argue with you and "look for trouble" then don't make posts which are demonstrably incorrect.

[Starglider]

Government fucking with the economy is also not new - look at all the drama surrounding the creation of a central bank (during the Jackson administration); government defended slavery for years, despite its stranglehold on the economy and its roadblock to development.

It is quite clear that Zeon was referring to burying handouts in ridiculously long legislation that the elected officials have no hope of understanding, and the exploitation of administrative overhead as a subsidy. Both of these things are relatively recent, and more insidious that simple bribery or direct economic intervention.

[Big Phil]

Government fucking with the economy is also not new - look at all the drama surrounding the creation of a central bank (during the Jackson administration); government defended slavery for years, despite its stranglehold on the economy and its roadblock to development.

It is quite clear that Zeon was referring to burying handouts in ridiculously long legislation that the elected officials have no hope of understanding, and the exploitation of administrative overhead as a subsidy. Both of these things are relatively recent, and more insidious that simple bribery or direct economic intervention.

No, it wasn't quite clear, but I'll accept that's what you two are saying and drop the issue at this point.

[Count Chocula]

Well, considering that apparently there was no actual copy of the final bill available when it was voted on, I refuse to believe that any member of the House actually has any clue what they actually voted on. It apparently was voted on in the form of a 1090 page bill, with a 300 page stack of amendments to that bill. Amendments that read like: "Page 15, beginning line 8, strike paragraph (11)...". Nevermind the fact that said 300 page stack of amendments was added at 3am on the night before voting.

This is a replay of the goddamn 2008 bailout bill, and the $1 trillion budget bill from a couple months ago. ANOTHER huge piece of ... legislation ... that very few Congressmen actually had time or access to amendments to read before casting their vote. The 300 pages of amendments smells like rancid pork to me.

Analysis also predicts that this bill will cost taxpayer money, create new bureacracies, and cost jobs. Yippee! Just what we need with 10% unemployment! Here are some fun facts and opinion on the impact:

• The CBO analysis of Waxman-Markey, done before the 3AM Friday amendments were added, states that "enacting the legislation would increase revenues by $873 billion over the 2010-2019 period and would increase direct spending by $864 billion over that 10-year period." In other words, this is an $873 billion tax of just under $100 billion per year on average, or $330 for every man, woman and child in the US. If you limit that to the number of people who actually work in the civilian labor force, or 153,993,000, that's $650 per worker. With a piddling $13 billion for 'deficit reduction.' Sounds like a regressive tax to me! One amusing line in the report is the estimated $100 million per year in tax revenue anticipated from profits generated at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
• The National Black Chamber of Commerce funded a study that estimates, by 2030, the legislation would reduce GDP, reduce employment, and reduce worker earnings. But hey that's by 2030, so who gives a shit, right?
• The US Chamber of commerce has also weighed in against it, and has a neat little (well not really little) CHART that details the 1,457 regulations and mandates that would come out of this monstrosity.

This looks like it would only encourage "smokestack" industries, like tire manufacturers, paper mills, chemical plants, non-government owned (?) auto makers, steel mills, agribusinesses, hell any business that generates carbon or CO2 to move their operations elsewhere. Like, perhaps, to Mexico, China, India, or other countries that would have net credits under this scheme. Oh, and who have few or no environmental regulations and little inclination to operate cleanly. Hell, they'd get the 'credits,' the business and no requirement to be 'green' themselves!

I hope the Senate does the smart thing and kills the Senate version of the bill, but I'm not holding my breath. It's not like nobody saw this coming. Candidate Obama came right out in January 2008 and said his plan would "make electricity rates skyrocket." Don't take my word for it, listen to the man himself from time mark :36.

EDIT to put a CBO line where it belonged.

[Starglider]

[*] The National Black Chamber of Commerce funded a study that estimates, by 2030, the legislation would reduce GDP, reduce employment, and reduce worker earnings. But hey that's by 2030, so who gives a shit, right?

I'm not defending this bill, but this is not a valid criticism without quantification (and even then, the reduction would have to be very large to be a welfare issue). The American tendency to promote economic growth as the only valid goal, and to depict anything that might reduce growth as an unmitigated evil, is extremely annoying. Economic growth is only useful to the extent that it improves the wellbeing of the population and it is not always the best way to achieve that.

[Count Chocula]

I'm not defending this bill, but this is not a valid criticism without quantification (and even then, the reduction would have to be very large to be a welfare issue).

Fair enough. I linked to the precis; here's the link for the actual analysis by CRA International (http://www.crai.com), which includes the methodology, models used, and baseline assumptions.

[LadyTevar]

Amusingly, Nit''s sister is a lobbist for the US Steel Industries who use electricity to melt and recycle steel. They were worried that the cap&trade would leave them at the mercy of the coal-burning electric companies as they budget for cap&trade.

So, she was lobbying congressmen to allow these non-coal-burning steel companies have an exception to higher electric rates.

[Guardsman Bass]

This looks like it would only encourage "smokestack" industries, like tire manufacturers, paper mills, chemical plants, non-government owned (?) auto makers, steel mills, agribusinesses, hell any business that generates carbon or CO2 to move their operations elsewhere.

More likely, they'll lobby to get so many emissions permits that reductions end up being negligible.