Even if it passes the House, there is still the Senate to contend with.

The Senate couldn't get 51 votes to include Cap and Trade under reconciliation rules. That doesn't instill much optimism here. That said, I would like to hear Kucinich explain how this bill is worse than nothing.

Obama is pushing major change on the country via the climate change bill and health care reform. These will be testing moments for legislators. Can they move us forward, albeit in small steps, or will they capitulate to the monied interests who have profited handsomely over the past several decades? Years and years of let downs and capitulations does not leave me with much optimism. People don't change easily.

We'll probably have to shelve this and return to it at some future point during Obama's tenure because too many people won't or can't change their votes. I hope I'm wrong.

as far as this country -- and in particular, its lawmakers -- taking the global climate deterioration seriously, these "leaders" are teething babies on pablum, and have absolutely no clue what the human species is up against. and many of them don't want to know. we're seriously doomed because these pricks are such cowardly, greedy idiots...

Apparently there is a group of 16-22 Senators who are not happy with this bill and it may not pass the Senate.

Good luck, Mr.Waxman. A garden hose is better than no hose at all while putting out a fire.

Assuming there is anyone left to write the histories of the late 20th and early 21st century a great deal of attention will be paid to the complete failure of American 'democracy' to deal with long term complex global issues.

Its about time polluters and persons leading dangerous lifestyles were charged for their wanton waste for which the rest of us and the world community has been directly paying for thru decreased health, happiness, and resource access.

Americans are learning that they havn't the right to use up every last drop of oil and atmosphere just to power McMansions and air condition football stadiums. With a slight imagination I think we can all dream of a few more lofty goals.

Water vapour is a "Greenhouse gas", as is methane. There is far more water than CO2 in the air. Why isn't there any provision for "Water Vapour Credits" in this bill? When will we start to see "water trading pits" on the Chigaco Mercantile Exchange? When will the water tax be here? As for methane, I shudder when I think of all the ways that the government could legislate against that particular gas.

Did anyone stop to think that there is twice as much Oxygen as Carbon in CO2? Perhaps we should start taxing Oxygen as well.

And while we are at it, the sun is the fundamental source of ALL climate change, so perhaps we should start taxing the other fundamental component of life on this planet; Sunlight.

Surely not, that would be crazy!

I wish people would recognize what a killing some polluters stand to make from cap-and-trade. Read the fine print. It should be simple -- you dirty the air, you pay for it. But this isn't.

I'm sorry but it makes me sick that the government has given up on its primary role of protecting individual rights. You're arguing over trivialities when the most important issue is whether or not the government should be telling people how and what they can exert their efforts on. Remember that if you start begging for the government to take away one person's rights, eventually it comes back on you.

There is far more water than CO2 in the air. Why isn't there any provision for "Water Vapour Credits" in this bill?

Because this bill is concerned with regulating anthropogenic carbon emissions that are threatening life on this planet. Just how many heat records are being set today across the U.S.? Ever looked into how many hundreds of billions global warming is costing U.S. farmers alone?

When will we start to see "water trading pits" on the Chigaco Mercantile Exchange?

We won't.

When will the water tax be here?

There won't be one, but ironically there is a worldwide movement by multinational corporations to privatize all water and charge people for it. But I guess it's OK if a corporation is boning you up the ass for kicks versus your government trying to save it.

As for methane, I shudder when I think of all the ways that the government could legislate against that particular gas.

Like charging for useless hyperbolic comments on blogs?

Did anyone stop to think that there is twice as much Oxygen as Carbon in CO2? Perhaps we should start taxing Oxygen as well.

You're very, very dumb. People who make the dim argument that we can't combat global warming if it means their taxes might go up don't understand the climate, economics, or self-preservation. Forty years from now when the CO2 levels hit 600ppm and we're experiencing drought and famine across the planet, I'm sure your tender sensibilities about taxation will be satisfied as hundreds of millions die.

Damn I cannot believe I'm on the same planet with people this stupid, much less the same blog.

critical review of European cap and trade

Waxman-Markey will have little effect in the next 10 years, and it won't have a high price tag in the next 10 years either. But it will have some effect, and it will cost some money. Because it can be either scrapped or (as written) strengthened after that, it's the sort of thing that a "global warming sceptic" can stand behind. It's less "transparent" (an Obama watchword) than a CO2 tax, but no tax is going to be enacted. Added to other programs already in place (some enacted since Obama was sworn in, but not yet having any effects; some in place before he was sworn in and having demonstrable effects), it will have an incremental effect toward enhancing US energy security and renewable energy supplies. I doubt that it will change any foreign nation's evaluation of how hard America is trying to retard CO2 accumulation, but it will be a nice advertising emblem at the Copenhagen talks later this year.

Andrew: Did anyone stop to think that there is twice as much Oxygen as Carbon in CO2? Perhaps we should start taxing Oxygen as well.

If you had written that as a joke on purpose it would be funny. As it is, it's appalling.

As temperatures soar, the demand for energy peaks, requiring utilities to fire up coal plants and send even more carbon into the air -- feeding a vicious cycle:

Record heat prompts weather advisories, all-time energy consumption

Updated: 6/26/2009 7:31 AM
By: News 8 Austin Staff

As the temperatures continue to peak in the triple-digits, the National Weather Service is posting a heat advisory for all of Central Texas.

The advisory is in effect until 7 p.m. Saturday night.

For continual updates on the heat, check out News 8 Weather online or tune in to weather reports every 10 minutes on News 8.

With temperatures ranging between 100 and 105 degrees, the heat indices could rise to nearly 110 degrees.

You're urged to stay in an air conditioned area, out of the sun and check up on relatives and neighbors, especially the young and elderly.

Wednesday's temperature hit 105 degrees making it the hottest June 24th in Austin weather history and area residents broke another record just trying to keep cool.

June 24 marked an all-time peak demand of energy.

Trex,

I may just be very, very dumb, but I know what hyperbole is. Michael Mann's debunked Hockey Stick is an example of hyperbole. The IPCC's worst-case climate scenarios are another.

Translating scientific papers that say "dramatic sea level rises are very unlikely but not impossible" into "Sea levels will rise dramatically" is yet another.

Much smarter people than me are questioning the validity of climate models and the IPCC's interpretation of the output of these models.

Drowning out these questions with abuse and alarmism is hardly the road to truth and knowledge.

I suspect that MatthewRMarler is much closer to the mark than either of us. The Climate Change Bill is an exercise in International Politics. It will have little practical effect on carbon emissions, but it will make America a little less dependant on foreign oil and it will make the rest of the world like America a little more.

Unfortunately, it will also cost every household between $150 and $700 a year (estimated). We would all be better off spending that money on solar/wind/geothermal (or other) alternative energy sources. The effects would be the same and our heating/power bills will actually go down instead of up.

But then again, perhaps I'm just being stupid.

Trex,

Your recent post contains another example of hyperbole.

There are thousands of weather recording stations around the world and hundreds in the USA. The chances of one of them recording a new record DAILY temperature in the summer months is very high.

Take a look at this chart of extreme temperatures:

http://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm

The highest recorded temperature in Texas is 120 degrees in 1936. The highest recorded temperature in the US was 134 degrees in California in 1913. Not one of the record temperatures (high or low) was set in the current century.

I have no data to support the claim of June 24th marking an all-time peak demand for energy in Austin or anywhere else so I cannot support or refute that claim. However, I do know that our demand for energy is increasing. This is the price of progress, and I want the whole world to continue progressing.

I welcome, and even encourage initiatives to find and exploit cheaper, and more plentiful forms of energy. My holy grail is ubiquitous fuel cells coupled with solar-powered generation of Hydrogen from water and a distribution network to make it available to everybody.

I deplore "Cap and Trade". It punishes the poor and the weak. It enriches the powerful. It expands Bureaucracy and it is expensive.

It's just my view.

I can't wait to pay through the nose for gas for my car. I will then have to quit my job because I can't afford to drive back and forth, then I can rely on the government to take care of me with your tax dollars.
I just love the fact that our government thinks that they are all powerful and can change what happens naturally on our planet.
If they think that by taxing our means of living will save the planet they are just delusional. While everything under the sun is costing us more and more other countries (China) will take that opportunity to do as they please with carbon emissions sell us their products which are less expensive than ours, drive our economy in to the dirt, creating mass joblessness and splitting our society in to classes of have money for energy and no money for energy.
Have you ever noticed that those talking loudest about being "green" have the biggest cars, personal planes and very large houses. They want you to change so they may continue their extravagant way of life.
If you support this bill then you deserve what you get.

Andrew: I deplore "Cap and Trade". It punishes the poor and the weak. It enriches the powerful. It expands Bureaucracy and it is expensive.

I support Waxman-Markey, despite those defects, because GHG-induced global warming might be happening, because imported oil is becoming very expensive (buying it arms enemies who are fighting or preparing to fight against us, not to mention the dollar cost itself), and because I think that we should preserve our own oil resources as long as we can, for military purposes (I think of ANWR as the part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is already filled, like the Teapot Dome Naval Reserve.)

However, meaningful reductions in CO2 accumulation, not to mention actual reductions, are going to be a lot more expensive than most proponents are willing to admit. Moreover, the harder the push now, the less likely to achieve long-term reduction without a catastrophic reduction in wealth -- it would use up capital that would otherwise be available as better/cheaper technologies are developed. Part of the cost of a hard push to reduce CO2 will be a lower rate of inventing and developing new drugs and other medical technologies -- not just less money for plasma-screen tvs and vacation cruises. It's worth a great deal, in other words, not to do too much too soon, even as it is worth a great deal to continue to push for alternative energy sources.

It's another example of what we always face: a choice between seriously flawed alternatives. To the degree that Waxman-Markey proves to be not expensive, it won't accomplish much -- the hard part starts in 2021.

This bill will destroy the American Economy. As the article points out it will drive current cars of the road, and change the applicances in peoples houses. How?, by making them too expensive for the Average American. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will be thrown out of work and into the unemployment line. New Green jobs? For every green job created 5 or 6 regular jobs will be destroyed. This bill will have us all living in unheated, un-airconditioned huts and walking or riding bikes to work. The only saving grace if this bill passes is that when the tremendous costs start hitting the Average American and Unemployment shoots up, Obama and the Democrats in Congress will be joining the unemployment line, but horrible damage will have been done to an already fragile economy. This bill is a form of national suicide!!!!

GEEZE, when are you going to get it? TRhere is no Global Waming temparatures level since 2001, there probably is a lot of polution to be concerned about but this is a red herring. The dems are now driven by all the SCHEMES they have been planning for 10 years, not concern for the WORLD, like Pelosis with her CLEN investments. Gore with his investment interests. Yes a lot of people have been jinned up to be concerned about the WORLD, but that ship has sailed. A preponderous amount of scientists now speak out against the C02 global warming science. This is merely a rape of our citizenry for political purposes as another way to redistribute wealth.

Just this morning, according to media reports, Waxman dropped a 300-page amendment into the energy tax bill. Before your congressman votes this afternoon, he'll surely read the Waxman insertion, right?

There is no Global Warming.

You guys aren't the least bit concerned that this bill actually accomplishes NOTHING to combat global warming, while costing the United States millions of jobs?

The breathless doctrine of the Global Warming fundamentalists is strikingly similar to the well rehearsed babble of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

If this is passed, history will remember it as our generation's Smoot Hawley. Remember where you heard it first. I know I'm right.

Soylent Green is made of People!

There is far more water than CO2 in the air. Why isn't there any provision for "Water Vapour Credits" in this bill?

Because water vapor in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with the oceans and other surface waters. If you were to remove water vapor somehow, it would be replaced within hours. Nice try though.

Since CO2 is toxic gas and since we, humans, emit CO2 with each exhale, we should strap monitors on newborns right after we initiate their breathing. We can then charge them for fouling our planet right up to the last breathe! It would also help healthcare. If you are in good shape, you breath less and save money! Wow, what a great revenue source!!!!

I went to Quantico in October of 1967 after having signed up for Officer Candidate School, USMC. One of my Platoon mates died from heat stroke during our seventh week of training. This was the result of a particularly difficult 6.5 mile "run" on the infamous Hill Trail. He made it all the way to the "grinder" before falling out. I'm told that the Corpsman who first measured his tempreature reported 106.

My point, the winter of 1967 was allegedly the coldest winter in 50 years for the Quantico area and an extremely fit and atheletic individual succumbs to heatstroke, however, during my tour in Vietnam no one in my Rifle Company was medevaced as a result of heatstroke in an environment that routinely exceeded ambient tempreatures in excess of 115 degrees F.

Finding, heat is less deadly the cold.

@Chad - Actually, the explanation is exactly wrong. There are naturally occuring water cycles and CO2 cycles. The existence of cycles doesn't make them negligible. In particular the amount of atmospheric water that is in the particular form of clouds is a significant variable in climate models and is a much bigger effect than CO2 - the difference is we feel some level of responsibility for the CO2 component and would like to understand if we can effect it.

The author's list of benefits of this bill amounts to nothing more than the cost of a higher tax, and using less of a cheap commodity. These could only make sense in the illogical world of a liberal.

Liberals are dogmatic to even consider the failings of global warming theory, and you cannot get them to understand that a theory is proven through scientific method, not consensus.

Under scientific method, anthropogenic global warming is weak science at best. The computer models which form its basis fail repeatedly to predict climate change events or other long term climate characteristics. CO2 cannot be measured accurately in the air (that's right, newsflash to all you envirozombies), and lastly, the purported elevated level of CO2 (380ppp to 400ppm) does not comply with what amount to a law in earth science that the CO2 in the MUST be equal 1/50 the CO2 content of the oceans.

According to the measured content of CO2 in the seas, the CO2 in the air cannot be greater than 300ppm. When confronted with this problem, global warming scientists explain the missing CO2 to some giant UNDISCOVERED sink hidden in the atmosphere or the earth's surface which is sucking up the difference--absolute conjecture! The CO2 content of the atmosphere under the 1/50 rule is virtually equal to what was found in 10,000 year ice cores.

In short, the facts listed above prove that global warming is a flawed theory, and not kind of science worthy of changing our lifestyle and economy for.

I emailed both my Senators and sent an email to the President stating I am adamantly opposed to this bill.

Fortunately, I think the tide has turned on GW and a consensus is now building that the issue needs continued study, but that predictions to date have been politicized and greatly exaggerated. The Democrat push for this bill is not because of environmental concerns...it's because it's a perfect fig leaf for an additional $650B in tax revenue that the Dems need to fund Health Care and a host of other new entitlement programs.

This article is climate change baloney. There is no reason to believe this bill will give us any moreal high ground to negotiate meanigful agreements for reduction of green house gases. Actually, intelligent people would negotiate first and then draft legioslation. You should not lay claim to any ground based on poor science and poor modeling. Cap & Trade, National Health Insurance and higher taxes and fees and cuts in Medicare and when these idiots in Congress get finished with us, we will only have prayer. The prayer that we never get real sick and we can take some good stuff and go the way of Michael Jackson. This Cap & Tax charade should be shelved and let's motivate our energy producers to produce cleaner energy. If you want to tax carbon, be honest about it and make it upfront a carbon tax. The liberals need to show some stones and raise revenues honestly and not by imbedding them in our ernergy use.

And now the United States will lead the world as we alone solve climate change. Al Gore has said that if we lead then China, India, Russia, Asia and THE WORLD will surely follow us. Oh really? I can hardly wait to see this magic show unfold. I suspect the more likely reality is that we will witness the destruction of the most vibrant economy the world has ever known and have next to nothing to show for it except feeling that we are just a cut above the rest of the world,,,,,ain't it grand. I know I'll feel better and the Chinese probably will too as they snag even more of our economy east. I submit Kyoto and it's failure as the litmus test of where we are headed. Good Luck.

trex. you will be dead in any case and will not be sharing the planet. No one gives a hoot about how you rate their intelligence. The whole climate change debate has been skewed in favor of Al Gore and the U.N. grab for money. The U.N. wants to trade those permits. The science is oepn to serious question. Many of us want to do what is right for the planet. I say kill all the liberals and let us get back to productive work.

When someone unequivocally says that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is occurring (or not) it causes me to question to their motives instantly.

Why rush to economic suicide without a debate about the science? Ask Obama or Gore to debate the science of global warming and you get silence. Look at the vitriol on both sides of this issue.

This is currently an ideological/political argument detached from science. This is not good.

This will be just like the stimulus - don't read it, just pass it.

What a joke. Even if I believed AGW was real, I would say let's wait until the economy is in better shape. American children will go hungry from this...but then the government will have to take care of everyone. I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but this reeks.

"Updated: 6/26/2009 7:31 AM
By: News 8 Austin Staff

As the temperatures continue to peak in the triple-digits, the National Weather Service is posting a heat advisory for all of Central Texas.

The advisory is in effect until 7 p.m. Saturday night.

For continual updates on the heat, check out News 8 Weather online or tune in to weather reports every 10 minutes on News 8.

With temperatures ranging between 100 and 105 degrees, the heat indices could rise to nearly 110 degrees.

You're urged to stay in an air conditioned area, out of the sun and check up on relatives and neighbors, especially the young and elderly.

Wednesday's temperature hit 105 degrees making it the hottest June 24th in Austin weather history and area residents broke another record just trying to keep cool.

June 24 marked an all-time peak demand of energy."

Dear heart, as a native Texan who has seen alot of weather, you should be more informed. For the entire history of Texas as a territory or state some part of Texas has been in drought. That predates cars and cities by more than 100 years. In addition, more recently in 1980, there were 69 days of 100+ heat in Dallas. That was back when the "great fear" of the environmentalists was the next great ice age. BTW, I just checked the temp at the UT Austin Campus, and it's 101.8 there so I don't know where you are that you are raising the temp artificially, but really, isn't that what all the St. Al Gore researchers did with the data on the hockey stick graph? And what about that conveniently nonworking satellite that ignored a portion of the Antarctic icepack the size of California? Face it, you are just another of HuffPo's little operatives spouting off things you think are facts when all they are is conjecture built upon BAD SCIENCE. Read more.

"...ending the country's love affair with big gas-guzzling cars and its insatiable appetite for cheap electricity." (!?) This entire article is so idiotic and elitist as to boggle the mind.

Some people drive big, gas guzzling vehicles because they need them to engage in the construction, farming and contracting work which puts bread on their tables. Some drive them because they reflect the style of the earlier era they were made in, are cheap and that is all the family can afford. Some drive them because they have chosen to have more than one child named Chloe or Ethan and it's really hard to get four kids into a Mini-Cooper.

With regard to the cheap electricity, you are right, if poor people would just be considerate enough to shiver in the dark, we wouldn't have these problems.

It sickens me that the kind of people who write articles for Washington Monthly are now making decisions that will effect the lives of millions of people and it is only small consolation that in just five months, they have overreached so badly as to make a second term a near impossibility.

Your US debate on this issue is like two people playing ping-pong on a raft that's drifting toward the top of Niagara Falls. All I can say is: Have fun and good luck with that.

A wise and happy man once said: "He who dies with the most debt wins." That's pretty much the US philosophy. In this case, the debt is owed to future generations and people all over the world, but on the other hand: "Who the hell cares! Party on! Dude."

The cap and trade bill does little to reduce carbon emissions, yet does a great deal to regulate American's lives even further. This is a great invasion of privacy. It further dictates housing codes, sets up regulatory boards in each community for housing codes, appraisal standards and this is an intrusion upon community and state's rights. This is further taking a huge step upon our 10th Amendment Rights.

The money raised from the largest tax increase in history will go to special interest groups. This is, as pointed out by Henry Waxman in his argument for the bill today, why the bill is so important. It is something they want. As Republicans pointed out, this bill is something the American people do not want. I ask, who does the Congress and Senate serve? It is the American people.

If the American people want further intrusion and regulation, then by all means, tell your Senator to vote yes to this far reaching bill. But if you don't like the federal government telling you how to build your home, sell your home, finance your home, how much electricity you can use, applying large taxes to everything you use in the way of fuel and cutting enormous amounts of jobs (because American businesses can take their work out of the country, therefore more Americans will be out of work - but there is a provision in the bill for that), FIGHT like hell against the Senate passing this bill and melt the telephone lines out of your Senator's office and the offices of those Blue Dog Democrats who will be the key to voting this bill down. WE are the key to winning this fight. And we must stand up and fight now.

I can solve global warming without spending all that money and disrupting our economy: "Look out the window instead of at the computer screen". If you look at the actual world instead of computer models you will find that it has been stable or cooling for the last 8 years -- while CO2 rises. If you follow the solar wind theory, then we may be looking at serious cooling in the next few decades -- a problem much more serious than raising the temperature a bit. Cool the planet a few degrees and you lose the time to grow crops in northern climes. And this isn't a 2100 scenario -- the Canola crop in Canada is in trouble this year.

As usual Liberals have proven themselves to be un-associated with nature and reality and the ultimate fools they are.

I didn't want to conclude that conservatives were incapable of rational thought, but their head-up-arse position on the greenhouse effect in particular and science in general implies that they are either seriously neural-connection-challenged or else shameless lying greedy bastards.

Ever hear of ice ages? Ever hear of monsoons in the Sahara? This bill, specifically, and global warming, generally, are bullshit.

News flash: it was hot in west Texas? really ? in the summer? did we really need the MSM to report that? what a bunch of crap this global warming hysteria is.Do people really believe we can change the climate? anyone from New York here? go to central park and tell me if those big Granite stones still have vertical striations in them from the last ice age just 10,000 years ago (the blink of a geological eye) when glaciers twice as tall as the Empire State Building scraped over Manhattan.Do you really want to "Cool Off" and return to that? In what lifetime do you think we live in the perfect climate and should keep it that way? why don't we just evolve and adapt as we always have? The earth isn't flat anymore and we can't control the sun!

This year US Fish and Wildlife expects a null year for production of Snow Goose goslings. Reason: The nesting colonies are still buried in snow. So much for global warming.

The glacier on Mount Shasta in northern California is growing.

Ooooohhhh how lovely! We are going to run the world on windmills, sunshine and cosmic rays. No more smelly taxis in New York City, bicycles everywhere, even in winter (climate change remember!) Central Park will be turned into a wind farm. BAD coal! BAD oil! BAD elcictricity! ALL GONE! All this makes me feel soooooo good I could just weep!

bunch of whining f|_|c|

Author failed to mention all of the "exemptions" given to utility companies and others for their support and promise not to raise rates to customers. This bill will go down as one of the biggest jokes in the history of congress (if it passes the Senate) and I hope will be repealed starting in 2012.
BTW, the exemptions remove caps from utility companies so they can pollute as much as they are now as long as they don't increase rates to consumers. So the very reason for passing the bill is undermined by buying support. What a joke.

This bill will do for the entire economy, what Senator Kennedy's luxury tax did for the American yachting industry some years ago. The deafening sucking sound you will hear if it is passed will be the tsunami roar of companies leaving the country for more "business friendly" locations overseas.

All of you idiots that support this legislative abortion realize you are little more than lemmings following some discredited 'cult of climate change' (or was that the cult of global warming? The green morons change their names when facts don't go their way).

I know many of you like to think you're 'saving the planet,' but whenever your champions are confronted with facts, you get a blank look on your faces and get upset that we didn't drink the kool-aid.