Handful Of Democrats Hold Key To Climate Bill

A handful of undecided Democrats hold the key to whether the House will confront global warming and begin a shift away from fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy.

House Democratic leaders were scrambling to round up additional votes to pass the climate legislation Friday before lawmakers depart for a weeklong July 4 holiday recess.

President Barack Obama, in both individual phone calls and in remarks from the White House Rose Garden on Thursday, urged lawmakers to pass the bill, calling it "a vote of historic proportions ... that will open the door to a clean energy economy" and green jobs.

The president and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has staked her prestige on passage of climate legislation, sought to counter a drumbeat of criticism from Republicans who have characterized the bill as a massive energy tax on every American and a "job killer," especially in energy intensive parts of the economy.

"It will create millions of new jobs," Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted at a news conference Thursday. 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.

Jobs and future energy prices is what's on the minds of many of the Democratic holdouts that Pelosi and key sponsors of the bill — Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts — have been pursuing for support. 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.

The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the country 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 have been increasing at about 1 percent a year and are expected to continue to go up if no mandatory reductions are required.

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and 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.

Everyone agrees that under this "cap-and-trade" system the cost of energy is expected to increase as electricity producers and industrial plants pay for increased efficiency, move toward greater use of renewable energy, pay for ways to capture carbon emissions or purchase pollution allowances.

They disagree, however, on how much of the added cost would be passed onto consumers. Democrats argue that much of the cost increase could be offset by other provisions in the bill.

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. They showed household energy costs likely would increase only modestly, with most of the increase erased by improvements in efficiency, energy rebates and pollution allowances to energy-intensive sectors of the economy.

The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, while 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.

You must be logged in to post comments.

Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Obama Snake Oil Co Location: Washington on Jun 29, 2009 at 05:36 AM
    Well, with this passing the house, it will raise you energy about $144.00 per month. NO new taxes? Well, they got you. This on top of so many more coming your way. I hope you can proudly say this is good, because it stinks. Al Gore is celebrating in his big mansion for all the money he will make.......your fault if you voted for it.
  • by Dwayne Location: Greenville on Jun 26, 2009 at 07:46 AM
    Scientific research and global temperatures indicate that we are in a period of global cooling. So, what is the "global warming" all about? Money and politics. The American public is being lied to. But then that is what is expected of the present administration. At least they are staying true to the campaign strategy of say anything to get what you want.
  • by Obama Snake Oil Co Location: Washington on Jun 26, 2009 at 06:02 AM
    This is more of the liberal agenda I speak of. Jay and Jr, you are both correct, this is about money for Al Gore and others hoping to make money off "a weak theory" they deem as facts. As I posted on a couple of P-38 Planes that crash landed on Greenland, Why were they found under 268 feet of ice? If we indeed have global warming they should have been at the top of the ice, not below. They were totally encapsulated in hard ice. Don't believe me, google it. Now people, do not this go, if a politican votes for this, can him/her. No politician should be this ignorant. Al Gore has been polishing this terd for years. Al has waited with his liberal friends to push this down the Americans throats for his own profit. He is not expert and has no real data to support it, just theory. You don't make laws on crap like this. Check out ole Al's house and wastefull life, he is causing global warming.
  • by Tyrone Location: Greenville on Jun 26, 2009 at 04:34 AM
    This is a major gamble that should not be done when the economy is in the dump.
  • by Jay on Jun 26, 2009 at 04:21 AM
    Global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes ever put over on mankind! This so-called "climate bill" is all about money and control!
  • by john Location: washington on Jun 26, 2009 at 03:37 AM
    You think things are bad now....if this passes hold on,$5-$6 dollar gallon gas,average home electric bills $400-$600 per month.Farmers use fuel to rase crops.Then there is transportation cost to get the products to market....see the trickle. Thanks you bunch of noneducated voters.
  • by jr Location: bath on Jun 26, 2009 at 02:50 AM
    several weather experts are on record saying that there is no global warming...in fact, we are entering into another mini-iceage, similiar to the last one in the early 1700's. during that period, around the time of blackbeard, the rivers as far south a deleware stayed frozen the whole winter. i personally subscribe to the mini-iceage theory, but i expect part of that is a distaste for al gore.

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 49169582 - witn.com/a?a=49169582
Gray Television, Inc.