Cutting carbon: Congressman Edward Markey discussed a new bill aimed at reducing carbon-dioxide emissions at an MIT forum on Monday.
Ed Markey
Fear of EPA regulation could help it pass, says Congressman Markey.
Congress is moving forward on legislation that would address both energy efficiency and climate change in a single bill, creating requirements for the use of renewable energy and introducing a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. A draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 was released at the end of March. Congressman Edward Markey from Massachusetts, one of the sponsors of the bill, said that hearings on the legislation will begin next Tuesday to help shape the bill into its final form.
Representatives from the Obama administration and one of the authors of the draft bill discussed it at a forum held at MIT on Monday. They said that two things have brought a sense of added urgency to the process. The first is that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving toward regulating carbon dioxide emissions even if Congress does not act. The second is the United Nations Conference on Climate Change, which will be held in Copenhagen in December. At the event, countries will meet to negotiate a new global climate-change treaty. Congressional leaders hope to have the bill passed by the House of Representatives by August, and have the finished version ready for the president to sign before the conference. President Obama has said that he hopes to make the United States a leader in addressing climate change at the meeting.
"The positions we can take at Copenhagen will be driven by what we're prepared to do domestically," said Carol Browner, who oversees policy on energy and climate change across federal agencies as a special assistant to the president, at the MIT forum. The bill and the hearings in the next weeks are "absolutely essential to our position and what we ultimately hope to achieve."
In its current form, the bill includes a renewable-energy standard, which would require states to produce one-quarter of their energy from sources such as solar panels or wind turbines by 2025. It also includes incentives for developing technologies for capturing and permanently storing carbon dioxide, improving the electrical grid, and reducing overall energy consumption. Furthermore, the bill outlines a cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from major industries by 83 percent by 2050, compared with 2005 levels. Under the cap-and-trade system, a set number of allowances for carbon dioxide emissions will be issued for each year. Companies that emit more than their allowance will need to buy more from companies that emit less than their allowance.
Economists and utilities say the draft legislation could help avoid costly regulations.
A carbon-emissions limit will raise energy prices unevenly.
Food to Fuel which starves 100 million. Ethanol production that uses an avg 100 gallons of water to make 1 gallon. Biofuel that increases ozone, N2O, and formaldehyde pollution. Green jobs that lose 2.2 regular jobs for every 1 created. Loss of capital efficiency that blows the budget, drives out industry, and destroys our economy. Green energy that is inefficient, inconsistent, and requires massive investment in grid expansion because of distant site location. Policy that pays billions for farmers not to farm, and billions more to put low productivity land into production. Green jobs really mean green for the lawyers, politicians, and insiders. You have been lied to. Will you go down quietly?
This is the kind of attitude that has kept the US from getting anywhere in the first place. So let’s keep loosing life over securing foreign resources because it is too costly to build the infrastructure to expand renewable resources in the US.
I agree that ethanol production from CORN is not the route to go but there are other emerging alternatives out there like fuel from switchgrass and closed loop algae growth. And yes they both pollute just like diesel and petroleum driven automobiles but instead of the $453.3 billion spent on importing foreign oil, it could have stayed in the US http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/annual.html.
I’m not sure how an extra $454 billion will destroy the economy but I’m also not an economist. Maybe you could also reply with a link to the facts that green jobs will lose 2.2 regular jobs for every one created.
The Disaster you're painting a picture of is based on using Biofuels for standalone vehicles, but if you use them for mass transit where the passenger per vehile is considerbaly higher, then there's a reduced risk.
Notice how all these bills from our government lack any specifics on Mass Transit solutions?
Don't worry though. When this planet decides to swat us off it's face like pesky fleas on a dog, all will return to normal and the planet will heal itself.
Pretty quickly I might add.
I do not support Cap and Trade since capping carbon and trading credits does not create anything.
1. Cap and Trade does not create wealth or help the American people in any way. In fact it robs the people of needed funds by increasing the cost of energy at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite.
2. Cap and Trade is perceived by the public as just another tax to help create a bigger government or to line the pockets of a few individuals or corporations.
3. Cap and Trade does nothing to create a larger workforce who pay taxes but does the exact opposite by removing needed capital from the private investment sector.
4. Cap and Trade is not a product - you can't eat it, the public can't spend or save it, you can't drive it or plant it in the ground and watch it grow.
In fact, Cap and Trade is exactly the opposite of what we need to be doing. What we need is more renewable energy from a variety of sources to reduce carbon emissions That's my opinion, what is yours?
tomgarven@hotmail.com
Guest (dennisbaker)
China and India participation is moot
the export of alternative energy to these contries is where the big money is.
participation in the cap and trade is not essential, what is essential is the cost of implementation of alternatives must be less than continued fossil fuel dependancy.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
mkogrady
425 Comments
Is there a Bill Number
What is the HR bill number for this, or where is the draft of the legislation stored (ie BillTrack?)
Reply
Kevin Bullis
178 Comments
Re: Is there a Bill Number
I just put in a link above. Click on "A draft" right before the name of the bill.
Reply