May 26 2009
Proposed Climate Legislation Faces Criticism from Environmentalists
Last Thursday a key committee in the House of Representatives approved sweeping legislation intended to address the gathering threat of global warming. Introduced by Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the American Climate and Energy Act of 2009 sets out to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Central to obtaining the bill’s emission standard, which is lower than what had been originally suggested, is the market based “cap and trade” approach. Through government “caps” and industry “trades” the legislation claims the system will spur the development of renewable energy sources while lowering emissions. However, many environmental groups, including Greenpeace, have criticized the cap and trade system as inefficient to deal with the problem of global warming and subsequently are not lending their support to the bill. Other criticisms by environmentalists include the proposed climate legislation’s classification of “renewable energy,’ which labels solid waste incinerators as a “waste to energy” project. The Breakthrough Institute, an Oakland-based think tank has suggested that the presence of such loopholes in the Waxman-Markey bill could actually lead to an increase in emissions by 2030.
GUEST: Daphne Wysham, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network.
One Response to “Proposed Climate Legislation Faces Criticism from Environmentalists”
The underlying premise of cap and trade–that CO2 drives global warming–is based on United Nations’ climate reports that were clearly tainted by politics and an agenda — see energyplanusa.com/ipcc_reports_dont_pass_smell_test.htm. American’s need our own objective scientific assessment of global warming. I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now after reading the UN reports I realize the fix was in and we’ve all been mislead. The UN reports are politics not science, yet our government (e.g. EPA) treats them as fact.