House Passes Global Warming Bill

Sweeping Legislation Calls For First-Ever Limits On Pollution Linked To Climate Change

(CBS/ AP)  Updated at 9:14 EST

House Democrats narrowly won a key test vote Friday on sweeping legislation to combat global warming and usher in a new era of cleaner energy. Republicans said the bill included "the largest tax increase in American history."

The vote was 217-205 to advance the White House-backed legislation to the floor, and 30 Democrats defected, a reflection of the controversy the bill sparked.

The legislation would impose limits for the first time on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, factories and refineries. It also would force a shift from coal and other fossil fuels to renewable and more efficient forms of energy. Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs, but disagreed widely on the impact on consumers.

President Barack Obama has made the measure a top priority of his first year in office. The president, along with White House aides and House Democratic leaders, scrambled for the votes to assure passage. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers leave on their July 4 vacation.

The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and a major struggle is expected.

In the House, the bill's fate depended on the decisions of a few dozen fence-sitting Democrats, mainly conservatives and moderates from contested districts who feared the political ramifications of siding with the White House and their leadership on the measure.

Democrats left little or nothing to chance. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., confirmed by the Senate on Thursday to an administration post, put off her resignation from Congress until after the final vote on the climate change bill.

"The bill contains provisions to protect consumers, keep costs low, help sensitive industries transition to a clean energy economy and promote domestic emission reduction efforts," the White House in a statement of support for the legislation.

Republicans saw it differently.

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

While the bill would impose a "cap-and-trade" system that would force higher energy costs, Republicans for weeks have branded it an energy tax on every American.

But Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said there was a "moral imperative to be good stewards of the earth."

The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and about 80 percent by the next 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 caps.

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants. It would distribute pollution allowances that could be bought and sold, depending on whether a facility exceeds the cap or makes greater pollution cuts than are required.

CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports that the bill starts off slowly, but over the next few decades would have a dramatic impact, aiming to reduce greenhouses gasses by 80 percent by 2050. The caps on carbon emissions will start out generously, and with subsidies to prevent any big jumps in utility bills, but over time will increase energy costs and force utilities and factories to turn to cleaner sources of energy.

Obama on Thursday called it "a vote of historic proportions ... that will open the door to a clean energy economy" and green jobs. "It will create millions of new jobs," Pelosi insisted.

Both Obama and Pelosi preferred to focus on the economic issues rather than on what environmentalists view as the urgency of reducing carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

The Rust Belt coal-state Democrats who have been sitting on the fence worry about how to explain their vote for higher energy prices to people back home - and how the vote might play out in elections next year.

Republicans have been quick to exploit those concerns.

"Democratic leaders are poised to march many moderate Democrats over a cliff ... by forcing them to vote for a national energy tax that is unpopular throughout the heartland," Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said.

There was widespread agreement that under this cap-and-trade system, the cost of energy would almost certainly increase. But Democrats argued that much of the impact on taxpayers would be offset by other provisions in the bill. Low-income consumers would qualify for credits and rebates to cushion the impact on their energy bills.

Two reports issued this week - one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency - seemed to support that argument.

The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year; the EPA put it at between $80 and $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 showing much higher cost to the economy and to individuals.

[rphull2]

Global Climate Evidence Has Evolved

A quote from one of EPA?s own scientists (1), ?Science?..is not a statement of belief ? and it is not ??.writing a description of the world or the opinions of world authorities on a particular subject. Science??..is the process of generating hypotheses and experimentally determining their validity by comparison with real world data. It is important to note that science evolves over time.? By the government?s own words then government based on science needs to verify by comparison with real world data and evidence that will ?evolve over time?.

It looked like several years ago that the climate scientist?s had some convincing science evidence that greenhouse gases might be affecting the global climate. Since that time, science has evolved and more facts and detailed data have been documented and verified. Here's how the evidence has changed since then.

1. The greenhouse signature is missing.
Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale "hotspot" warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There's not even a hint.
Something else caused the warming.

The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed, data turned the theory inside out.
Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half-a-million years temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally threw what we thought was cause-and-effect out the window.
Something else caused the warming.

2.Temperatures are not rising.
Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001.
While temperatures have been flat, C02 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend. The computer models don't know what it is.

3.Carbon dioxide is already doing almost all the warming it can do.
Adding twice the C02 doesn't make twice the difference. The first C02 molecules matter a lot, but extra ones have less and less effect. In fact, carbon levels were ten times as high in the past but the world still slipped into an ice age. Carbon today is a bit-part player.

4.Climate Models are not able to predict the global climate
Something out there is affecting our Climate more than C02 and none of the Computer models know what it is?

If government actions are to be based on science, then the government should not attempt to limit the release of co2 in an effort to control global climate. There is no credible evidence that co2 causes significant warming at the co2?s current levels. Cap and Trade, if implemented, will be based on other than science considerations.

We should not base government action on outdated information. If we do, history tells us that the US will be at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. The US is known for its leading edge technology, but trying to control climate by limiting the release of co2 will put us back in time.

This is not to say that we should not develop so called ?green technology?, but the funds for this can be generated much more efficiently using other methods than Cap and Trade. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Administrative Costs alone for Cap and Trade would be in the billions of dollars per year. Deficit reduction and ?other public purposes? funds totaling over $10 billion/yr, if necessary, can also be generated in other ways than cap and trade.

(1) NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emis

[abbe91]

Climatology of our planet is an extremely complex area. The AGW theory is based on 3 things :

1) the mean temperature of the planet was constant for a few thousands years before rising (the famous hockey stick curve).
2) ice core measurements
3) models

(1) and (2) fell apart and we are left with (3). Unfortunately, you cannot check (3) for yourself, since models are used by the people who designed them.

Peak Oil sounds to me like a much better reason to limit the use of fossil fuels.

[livewiremd]

Notice how the keywords in this argument have changed from global warming to "climate change". This is one part of the liberal deception that can actually be proven. Climates DO change, every day, every month, every year. Climates have changed WITH or WITHOUT a human being present on this planet. Climates are also changing on other planets. I wonder what kind of fossil fuels are being burned on Mars? Maybe Obama can make a UNIVERSE tax and if we sacrifice enough of our hard earned money we can keep the whole solar system cooler?
One thing we can prove for sure is that almost every liberal "great idea", like Social Security and Medicare becomes a scheme that eventually goes bankrupt. To me, a bankrupt USA is much more dangerous for our kids than if we use incandecent light bulbs for a few more years.

[Pojman]

Nancy Pelosi states that "Millions of jobs will be created" by this bill. Globally General Motors today emplys about 225,000 people. So, somehow the Speaker of the House BELIEVES that more than 4 GM's will be created by this bill (there may be 1,000 companies created but that the employment sum of all corporate entities will create that many USA jobs).

Do you "Believe" that this bill will accomplish that?

[velma179]

It would be amusing to hear all the naysayers scream "...there is NO global warming..." if it wasn't such a sad, pathetic sign of how very much our country needs serious Education reform.

And yep, they'll scream about that too.... learning from the past is wise, living in it is not.

[pepperwood2]

Extra Extra Extra!

Not only are we going to pull one over the Holier than thou Repugs and the American People on GW - but We The Gay-Activist Movement will be Honored at White House this coming Monday.

The Obama administration, is hosting a White House celebration of what most gay activists regard as the birth of their movement.

President Barack Obama has invited key leaders in the gay community to the East Room on Monday to commemorate the Stonewall Riots of June 28, 1969, during which hundreds of homosexuals threw bottles and garbage at police and set a gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, on fire.

Goodness gracious great balls on fire. We know how to get respect an attention. This should be on primetime CBS, NBC, ABC, & even Faux or Else? cackle cackle cackle.

[andylance1]

Pelosi's Energy Tax Bill of 2009 is like the famous phrase describing the vice president: It's not worth a bucket of warm spit. Oops, I think I just made a typo error.

[jschmidt27]

Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.
And it is not even working in Europe. But that's ok we can keep throughing money at the problem. That always fixes it.

[bman-n-ohio]

This Bill is another example of government running wild. "The people" have yet to understand the impact this bill will have on them. It has not gotten the media attention a bill of this epic proportion deserves, and when it does get mentioned, the "real" monetary impacts it will have on every citizen young and old are not included in the discussion. Our men and women of congress are meant to represent and protect the rights of the people, not their own self interests.
The people have been promised by President Obama that he will not raise taxes for anyone making less than $200,000. Well of course not, he will just tax the big bad utility companies, and we all know that they don?t pay taxes. They just pass the cost on to the consumers, whose incomes they do not discriminate. What will this do to our country, what will this do to the working class trying to save money to put their kids through college, the farmers just trying to afford diesel to put into their farm equipment, the elderly, who may well have to decide whether to turn on the heat, or fill their prescriptions. And I don't want to hear about rebate credits for the elderly and poor. How is that fair to those of us who work and save like Americans should.
I really don't understand how everyday people cannot see that this will skyrocket our energy bills and speed up inflation all because of junk science that is claiming ?the people? are warming the planet and fuzzy math that is underestimating the fiscal impact this will have on the "average" household. We are not as naïve as you think, the wool can only be stretched so far people.

Also, a note to the ultra-libs who believe they are intellectually superior. You like to label all conservatives as backwards, racist non-progressive minded peoples. How dare you. Just because a person aligns themself with a party, does not mean that they agree with every issue that said party or individuals within said party advocate. For instance, I hold mainly conservative views, but.... I believe there should be stem cell recearch, just not at the cost of a fetus. I believe that abortions are necessary, but tougher restrictions are needed, i.e. underage, incest, rape, health concerns to mother(and I don't want to hear about mental problems because a higher percentage of women who have abortions attempt suicide versus women who have babies). Oh, and I grew up in the middle of a black neighborhood. I love black people and often feel more comfortable and at home around black crowds rather than white ones.

It is amazing also how all liberals like to attack George W. Bush, who kept this country safe for the last 7 years, and demanded respect from the world at large. No apologizing for our past transgressions, no bowing to foreign leaders (courtesy my butt, know your place Mr. President). So he was not the best public speaker, at least he spoke honestly, and from the heart. I can't say as much for Mr. Obama, who is Stu-stu-stuttering Stanley without his teleprompter. You know, Hitler was a great orator also. So what if the government wants to spy on my phone calls, I have nothing to hide, do you? I really don't think they care what I am asking my wife to pick up for dinner. It burns me up to see our country so divided, but this is just the way it will be from now on.

God Bless America.....and everything she USED to stand for!!!!!!

[ubrew12]

Something has to be done about GW. I don't think this bill goes far enough, I think a carbon tax is the way to go: simple, direct, no loopholes. This bill, at 1200 pages, is filled with lobbyist loopholes on behalf of their various industries, so it'll be fairly ineffectual.

GW Bush doubled the national debt at a time when the economy, compared to today, didn't need it. NOW, when the private sector has stopped investing in the economy, is when we need the government to take on debt to keep unemployment from spiraling out of control.

This country spends $600 billion on its military every year. Frankly, Bozo the Clown could keep this country safe, given THAT kind of money. Of course, we're not really safe from our military...

[krauq]

I just have to laugh that the same politicians (Nasty Pelosick, Harry Reeks, and His Majesty, Barack Obama) who want climate change have all these SUVs and limos and Air Force Ones in their motorcades that would contribute just as much, if not more, to greenhouse gases.

[nh4ronpaul]

What did you expect from criminal Barack Hussein Obama? He is using the Cloward-Piven strategy to bankrupt and ruin this country. Rockefeller, Gorbachev, and the detestable Al Gore will all get rich on the backs of the rest of us poor and middle class, so they can enforce their new world order.
We NEED A MILITARY COUP TO REMOVE THESE PEOPLE FROM POWER.

This bill was based on HUGE admitted HOAX.

Some quotes:

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill..." - The First Global Revolution,Club of Rome an elite think-tank (David Rockefeller, Gorbachev, etc.) working with the UN.

"...we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination.... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider.

?No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.? - Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment

[apple2pie]

The Republicans had 8 years to tackle global warming instead they denied it even existed. Why??? ..Because acknowledging global warming would be bad for big business.
The best picture yet that I got a kick out of is when (R)Sen Bohner looked as tho he had just been f*k*d*! Congratulations Dems..now the Fat B*s*d* finally knows what It feels like.

[jschmidt27]

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

[ubrew12]

Ah yes. The Heritage Foundation. That would make you a stooge of some of the most powerful corporations and families in America. Congratulations.

[philcoom]

Ok Folks, it's time now to start writing and calling your senate representatives. Demand that they vote NO the the Cap and Trade. Demand that they investigate why previous administrations passed the FREE TRADE policies such as NAFTA and Demand that they impose a matching import tariff, duty, VAT on import that equals the country the imports arrive from. CHINA, INDIA, Mexico along with many other countries impose these taxes on our imports while our country charges little to no import taxes on good from these same countries... what's so fair about this kind of policy. It only helps the other countries appear to have lower prices while our products appear to have higher prices.

[nextgenman09]

Global Warming is a fact. We may not know all of the causes, but it is happening and its effects will be a life-changer for humans over the next century.

[gravyboat3000]

A fact per whom?

Climate change happens naturally.

And, NOTHING we do in the U.S. will a differnce if the world isn't on board.

This is a waste of money, and time.

Let's concentrate on developing electric cars, not to combat,"global warming", but to end our dependence on other countries.

[gravyboat3000]

Global warming is a theory.

This is a waste.

I'm tired of politicians, from ALL parties.

[John_Merritt]

One does not have to suggest where is the 'tipping point'? After reading all these wonderful blogs, it is rather apparent we crossed over that line along time ago. When the people within the nation confront, torment, abuse and violate the rights of their neighbor because they can, or they want, to..........we have seen the tipping point. Discuss and stay on point...quit killing each other with words.

[bajajohn1]

Go into your car and crank the engine. Get out of your car, walk to the rear of the car and put your nose up to the tailpipe. Breathe the exhaust for say ten minutes. Should make every Republican quite happy. Multiply that by a billion times across the planet. What do you get? Answer: A billion dead people.

[ubrew12]

The IPCC just quietly updated their assessment of probable global sea level rise by the end of this century, they doubled it.

Thats right, Global Warming scientists have been so CONSERVATIVE in their assessments of the damage GW can cause the globe, that they have just had to DOUBLE their prediction of sea level rise, and just in the last two years.

Rightwingers are betting that GW won't affect them too. But the scientists have been overly conservative EVERY YEAR that they have been making their 'dire' predictions. They totally missed the arctic thaw, for example. Both the ice core record and modern understanding show that earth has NUMEROUS positive reinforcement reactions to human-caused GW that could still condemn this planet to being unlivable. Its just an enormous risk rightwingers want the rest of us to take, and all so that they can feel good about their egos.

[BeckieBest]

Bravo Congress!