US News

US lawmakers approve landmark climate bill (3rd Roundup)

By Chris Cermak Jun 27, 2009, 3:24 GMT

Washington - The US House of Representatives narrowly approved an historic climate bill Friday night that for the first time would force US companies to limit greenhouse-gas emissions blamed for global warming.

The 219-212 vote marks a major victory for President Barack Obama, who has made global warming and clean energy legislation a top priority for his administration.

But the legislation deeply divided US politicians, businesses and even climate groups. The outcome of the House vote was uncertain to the very last minute: Only 8 Republicans voted in favour and 43 Democrats voted against the measure.

The bill now moves to the Senate, which could have an even tougher time getting the measure passed. Groups on both sides have also vowed to continue pushing for changes as the legislation makes its way through the US Congress.

The United States, which together with China emits about half of the world's greenhouse gases, has long faced pressure from other governments to more aggressively reduce its carbon footprint.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who met with Obama earlier Friday at the White House, backed the House bill as 'an enormous success, which I would not have thought possible a year ago.'

In a statement late Friday, Obama called the vote 'historic ... bold and necessary.'

'The fact is, just weeks ago, few in Washington believed that this day would come to pass,' he said.

The mandatory emissions curbs approved Friday were long resisted by former president George W Bush.

The Obama administration hopes the bill will bolster the country's bargaining position at a critical meeting in Copenhagen in December, where governments are expected to thrash out a new global treaty to combat climate change.

'It's a huge boost to the international negotiations,' Jennifer Haverkamp of the Environmental Defence Fund, a non-partisan environmental group, told the German Press Agency dpa.

'The negotiations have really been on hold, waiting to see what the United States will do,' she said.

The centrepiece of the legislation is a so-called cap-and-trade system, which already exists in Europe and creates a market for carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. Companies would get pollution allowances that can be traded between dirtier and cleaner firms.

Supporters and opponents of the bill had been lobbying furiously throughout the week. Climate, business and industry groups have been out in force with television advertisements and mobilizing their supporters to call their congressional representatives.

Lawmakers were locked in a spirited debate on the floor of the House throughout the afternoon. Opposition Republicans and some Democrats argued the bill would impose an undue burden on the US economy and shift jobs to emerging economies with less stringent environmental rules.

'The jobs will go to China and the (US) economy will go to hell,' said Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican from California. 'Wake up America!'

Obama hopes a cap-and-trade system will cut US emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels - about 7 per cent below 1990 levels - by 2020, and nearly 80 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Obama earlier Friday said the United States had failed to tackle climate change in the past and acknowledged the country was lagging behind Europe in reducing emissions.

'Europe in many ways over the last several years has moved more rapidly than the United States,' Obama said after his meeting with Merkel. He was 'impressed' with Germany's 'foresight and commitment to clean energy.'

But the bill has been watered down over the last few weeks and is still below the European Union's commitments. The EU has promised a 20-per-cent emissions cut below 1990 levels by 2020 and called for other wealthy countries to adopt stiffer targets as well.

Democratic leaders were forced into last-minute compromises to get the backing of lawmakers from farm and coal producing states, agreeing to hand out some pollution credits for free.

The compromises have made some climate groups uneasy. Carl Pope of the Sierra Club said his organization would be pushing for major changes in the coming weeks.

'We urged the House to pass this bill so that we could work to strengthen it before it reaches President Obama's desk,' Pope said in a statement. 'It is now of the utmost importance that the Senate improve several of its provisions.'

US businesses, many of which have pushed for a federal cap on emissions to replace a patchwork of state regulations, have also been divided over whether to support the bill.

The US Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than 3 million businesses around the United States, came out in opposition.

The chamber hopes, at some point, that Congress will find a way to balance the need for a strong US economy while still addressing global climate change. Unfortunately, Congress has fallen short with this bill,' William Kovacs said in a statement.



COMMENT

blog comments powered by Disqus

Latest Headlines in US

Older Talkback

page: 1 

CeolasJun 27th, 2009 - 04:53:27

Chris, The Us Chamber of Commerce is right...as are other critics.

---------
Cap and Trade is an expensive roundabout way of achieving...not very much.
-------- Whatever one’s attitude to greenhouse gas emissions, the point is that they can simply and effectively be lowered in a first phase just by changes in electricity and transport (together responsible for 4/5 of emissions). Moreover those changes are advantageous regardless of also lowering CO2 emissions:
----------- 1. Local environmental benefit from the reduction of noxious substances emitted from electricity or transport combustion of hydrocarbon fuel, regardless of any less tangible global benefit from CO2 reduction - and that is one reason why the focus on carbon trading is wrong, compared with the focus on reducing fuel combustion emissions.
---------2. Energy supply benefit from the diversification of electricity generation with related improved grid distribution and service competition for consumers.
----------3. Energy supply benefit from the diversification (electrification, hydrogen fuel enablement etc) of transport, reducing the dependency on oil imports.
-----------In 2020, from then available evidence, either 1. There is increasing consensus that global warming can’t be stopped anyway, and that further specific reduction attempts have no value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or 2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which case America is on track, and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts for the years 2030 aqnd 2050 that also bring in agriculture, cement, steel and other industry whose businesses hitherto did not need disruption.
------------------Cost to businesses - and the consumers - is kept to a minimum, by equity and long term loan finance, the latter can be fed/state guaranteed to keep down interest rates, with slow payback anyway giving little affected consumer electricity bills or car costs. No disruption of American business practice and planning, by emission trading. No volatile extra emission trading costs for a range of businesses, passed on to consumers. Understanding Cap and Trade + why it is bad for America, see ceolas.net/#cce5x
--------------------Also: The assumption is that all energy efficiency legislation is good for consumers. Wrong…inefficient products need to have special advantages or noone would buy them. The fact is that efficiency regulation on a product sacrifices performance, construction, appearance and price features, and does not necessarily give the savings suggested anyway.
----------------See ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards regarding efficiency regulation effect on buildings, lightbulbs, cars, dishwashers and other products.

Report this comment

No they don't:Jun 28th, 2009 - 08:47:16

The principle is a very simple but clever mechanism which utilises markets to price the 'cost' of carbon into the economy.

Companies who generate carbon emissions as outputs, as opposed to companies who generate emissions indirectly via their business inputs (the stuff they buy), like power companies and airlines are given a quota (or permit).

Permits can either be awarded or auctioned.

The idea is that there is a fixed limit on the volume of emissions and companies can trade their quotas. This means that companies who reduce their emissions below their quota can sell their surplus quota to another company who needs to produce more. This has the affect of increasing the cost of carbon emissions and incentivising companies to reduce their emissions.

Report this comment

SP4: will not workJun 28th, 2009 - 14:16:14

America is a failure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In America, politicians are among theeeee MOST corrupt on the planet.

And in America all the politicians can be bought....for the right price, of course!

Report this comment

SP4: PeopleJun 29th, 2009 - 17:28:19

...know when it is really me. Now run along and inform yourself.

Report this comment

page: 1 

Follow Us

Follow M&C on Pinterest

Search

Custom Search

Also Check Out

Noomi Rapace still loves ex-husband

Noomi Rapace still loves ex-husband
Noomi Rapace still loves her ex-husband, Ola Rapace, though she admits they had an 'explosive' relationship. ... more

JLS: Cross-dressing made us respect women

JLS: Cross-dressing made us respect women
JLS claim cross-dressing made them respect women more because they are impressed with how females move around in high-heeled shoes. ... more

P Diddy tells clubbers he wants to get married

P Diddy tells clubbers he wants to get married
Rapper was guest DJing at a nightclub in Las Vegas, Nevada. ... more

Kanye West insists on designer crockery

Kanye West insists on designer crockery
Rapper only uses Hermes plates and gold cutlery. ... more

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie do karaoke

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie do karaoke
Acting couple have hired a theatre company to help their family sing. ... more

Gordon Ramsay and Will Ferrell injured at soccer

Gordon Ramsay and Will Ferrell injured at soccer
World famous chef and actor leave football pitch in pain. ... more

Khloe Kardashian wants to dip niece in glitter

Khloe Kardashian wants to dip niece in glitter
'Keeping Up With The Kardashians' star has been spoiling the unborn baby with clothing. ... more

Robert Pattinson: 'I ran out of ideas with 'Twilight'

Robert Pattinson: I ran out of ideas with Twilight
Star admits he was tired of acting for a teen audience. ... more

Kelly Clarkson: 'I am not Beyonce'

Kelly Clarkson: I am not Beyonce
Original 'American Idol' winner refuses to wear uncomfortable high heels. ... more

Cynthia Nixon marries Christine Marinoni

Cynthia Nixon marries Christine Marinoni
'Sex and the City' actress tied the knot three years after getting engaged. ... more