by Jim Tankersley
President Obama this afternoon called a House-passed energy bill "an extraordinary first step" toward curing global warming and reducing fossil fuels, but he expressed reservations about a controversial provision that would slap tariffs on imports from countries that do not similarly crack down on greenhouse gas emissions.
Meeting with energy reporters in the Oval Office, Obama predicted the energy bill, approved in a narrow vote on Friday, would spark a wave of innovation and job-creation, and that its costs to consumers would ultimately fall well short of critics' warnings. "What seems contentious now is going to seem like common sense in hindsight," he said.
The House bill sets a declining cap on the greenhouse gas emissions scientists blame for global warming. Power plants, factories and other major emitters would need to obtain permits for their emissions or buy "offsets," such as newly planted trees, that reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The bill also includes strict energy efficiency standards and requirements for wind, solar and other renewable electricity use nationwide.
After factoring in that bill, strict new vehicle fuel standards he announced in May and hundreds of billions of dollars in energy-related spending packed into the economic stimulus, Obama boasted, "over the first six months" of his administration, "we've seen more action on shifting ourselves away from our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels than at any time in several decades."
"If you had asked people six months ago or even six weeks ago for that matter if you could get an energy bill with the scope of the one we saw Friday through the House," he said, "people would have said no way."
The president said the bill would be a "blueprint" for moving a companion measure quickly through the Senate, where any proposal must navigate concerns from more than a dozen Democrats who hail from oil, coal or manufacturing-heavy states.
He said he expected the bill to be altered in the Senate but offered few specifics about changes he would like to see. But he did not hesitate when asked if he supported a controversial provision, inserted late in the House debate, that seeks to penalize imports from nations that fail to cut their emissions in step with the United States.
"At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals," Obama said.
He noted other provisions in the bill meant to defend U.S. manufacturers - and their employees - from lower-cost foreign competition from coal-reliant developing nations such as China and India, and added "I am very mindful of wanting to make sure there is a level playing field internationally. I think there may be other ways to do it than with a tariff approach."
Republicans in the House attacked the bill last week as an energy tax that could devastate U.S. families and cost Democrats politically. The Senate's top Republican signaled on "Fox News Sunday" this morning that his caucus will pick up the chorus.
"It's going to cost jobs," said Mitch McDonnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican Leader. "Obviously it will. It's going to increase the business of living in America. We all depend on electricity... I don't think putting clamps on our economy when you know the Chinese and the Indians are not going to do it is a good idea."
Obama dismissed those attacks. He recalled similar warnings that the Clean Air Act and a national acid rain program would send costs soaring and kill jobs - warnings, he said, that turned out to be false,
He castigated opponents for "lying" about cost projections and "scaring the bejeezus" out of voters, and accused Republicans of being stuck in a 1990s-era debate on energy when the American people "have moved forward" with concerns about climate change and hope for renewable power.
"Everyone I talk to," Obama said, echoing his chief selling point for the energy bill, "when they think about how are we going to drive this economy forward, post-bubble, keeps on pointing to the opportunities for us to transition to a clean-energy economy as a driver of economic growth."
Obama also acknowledged concerns from the other end of the political spectrum: Environmental groups and foreign governments who have criticized the House measure for not doing enough to prevent potentially catastrophic warming, because of its concessions - in emissions reduction targets and in allocating most emissions permits for free initially - to win industry support.
"The final legislation, when it emerges, is probably not going to satisfy the Europeans or Greenpeace," he said. He also said putting a "realistic" warming framework in place would "change the political conversation and the incentive structure for businesses in this country."
"Finding the right balance between providing new incentives to businesses but not giving away the store is always an art, it's not a science," Obama said. "It's never precise. But on balance, what you have with this legislation is a bill that business can embrace but is tough enough that by 2020, you will see a significant reduction in carbon emissions. You're going to see the kind of certainty that the wind industry and the solar industry and the biomass industry has been hungry for. You're going to see farmers making some very concrete decisions about reforestation and tillage and putting windmills on their acreage that are going to have huge benefits for rural communities."
Comments
The increased gas emissions from China and India will still hurt the rest of the world no matter how much money the US throws at the problem.
Posted by: Vivian | June 28, 2009 7:46 PM
Nancy Pelosi bought stock in the companies that will benefit from this bill.
Expect your electricity bill to double.
Expect gas prices to increase by 75%.
Obama wants real estate appraisers trained to note homes that are deficient-too much energy loss- home will not be able to sell without repairs. Expect to pay. That's where the "jobs" come in...they're installing windows and door and solar systems and insulation.
Guess who shelling out the money....you the taxpayer!
You will also be charged for every mile you drive in your personal vehicle.
In England, they send up planes with thermal imaging to see what homes are "leaking" energy.
Vote out this dunce in 2012 and before that every democrat on a voting ballot.
There were 6 republicans who voted for this bill. One was Sonny Bono's widow, who is now married to Connie Mack.
Posted by: Ludy | June 28, 2009 7:54 PM
Vivian & Ludy:
So just because other countries do not want to clean up their act, we should do nothing? Do you know why they began the EPA in 1970? Please explain why we should not try to make things cleaner for our children and grandchildren. I'm interested in your answer and don't just place the blame on someone else. The answer to POLLUTION has to start somewhere.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | June 28, 2009 8:53 PM
A diverse energy supply is fundamental to our security as a nation and is a key issue for American’s today. Oppose flawed energy policies and support the use of alternative fuels by signing a petition at http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/takeaction/index.cfm?ID=41
Posted by: Maura | June 29, 2009 3:45 PM
For days we have heard from the left about hypocracy surrounding the Sanford affair about how the GOP only talks about family values, but doesn't practice them. Rightfully so in the Sanford case.
What about thenhypocracy from the left when it comes to the environment? Look at the limo liberals - Al Gore, John Edwards, John Kerry, etc... They fly in their private jets, have their big SUVs and yet have the nerve to preach to us about having enivironmental values.
Posted by: Terry | June 29, 2009 9:02 PM
See, first off, the thing is--there is no method of “greening” Coal-fired Power Plants...
So..., instead..., the Climate Bill channels BILLIONS of dollars to the fantasy that is called Clean Coal, such that King Coal makes out like a bandit, while the consumer pays and pays...
Here Read:
+ The illusion of clean coal / The Economist:
--“The world is investing too much cash and hope in carbon capture and storage.”
+ Trouble in store—Carbon capture and storage / The Economist,
+ The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal / BusinessWeek,
+ The Dirt on Clean Coal / The Nation
+ King Coal’s Latest Con Job—Clean Coal is Not Clean / CommonDreams,
+ The ‘Clean Coal’ Lobbying Blitz / The Center for Public Integrity:
--“They’re the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a collection of 48 mining, rail, manufacturing, and power-generating companies with an annual budget of more than $45 million — almost three times larger than the coal industry’s old lobbying and public relations groups combined.”
+ Clean Coal or Dirty Coal? / Alternative Energy Blog:
--“… Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal company spent over 5% of its revenues on political contributions, for comparison Exxon Mobil and General Motors spent a fraction of one percent. In seeming return for such generosity, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included five billion dollars of subsidies for the coal industry.”
+Stimulus Money Puts Clean Coal Projects on a Faster Track / NY Times:
--“The allocation of $3.4 billion in the federal stimulus bill for carbon capture and sequestration, as carbon storage is often called, however, has allowed Duke Energy and other companies to consider mounting full-scale projects.”
+ Climate Change Protection, or Climate Change Assurance? / Bloggers for Change:
--“… the 1,200-page bill would also devote $60 billion to making sure clean coal isn't a loser.”
+ The Case Against Carbon Trading / Transnational Institute:
--"... Citigroup’s Peter Atherton confessed that the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme had 'done nothing to curb emissions.’ He admitted, ... Prices up, emissions up, profits up ...’ Who wins and loses? Coal and nuclear-based generators--biggest winners. Hedge funds and energy traders--even bigger winners. Losers ... Consumers!”
+ Why China Could Blame Its CO2 on West / WSJ, 11/12/07:
--"If you have emission constraints, it's become very attractive to relocate dirty production to developing countries ... You import the finished goods, and leave the pollution in China.”
+ Nuclear Saviors: How Global Warming And Al Gore May Rescue the Nuclear Power Industry / CounterPunch:
--the financial stakes are staggering—“American companies, such as GE, CBS Corp (formerly Westinghouse) and Bechtel, desperately crave those multi-billion dollar contracts.”
+ Nuclear's CO2 cost 'will climb' / BBC News, 04/30/08.
--"The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics."
+ Integrity in the Balance: Al Gore’s Record On the Environment / CorpWatch:
“Terri Swearingen has heard enough of Al Gore's promises on the environment. "There may be some that believe he is a premier environmentalist, but not me," says the forty-three year old registered nurse and mother.”
“For nearly a decade, Swearingen has watched as the children of her quaint, working-class town in the Ohio river valley grow sicker and sicker. ‘It seems like every day we hear of a new cancer,’ she says. ‘Our children are getting cancer at a rate forty percent above the national average. In the past six months we've had two children develop a rare form of eye cancer. Do you know how unlikely that is for a town of our size?’
“In a campaign stop in Ohio, then-vice presidential candidate Al Gore blasted the incinerator as an "unbelievable" idea and promised outraged environmentalists that the Clinton/Gore team would ‘be on your side for a change.’"
“He followed up his pledge with an official press release calling for ‘a thorough investigation’ because ‘too many questions remain unanswered about the impact of this incinerator and the process by which it was approved.’"
“But that was Al Gore the candidate. And in those heady days of the election campaign, he probably didn't realize that one of the financiers of the incinerator was none other than an investment banker from Little Rock, Arkansas, named Jack Stephens. Not only does Stephens finance incinerators, he finances politicians, including the Clinton/Gore campaign to the tune of $100,000 in 1992.”
“A bank subsidiary of his company even extended the campaign a $3.5 million credit line. Not surprisingly after the election, Gore quickly dropped the incinerator issue-and the plant continues to operate despite repeated failures of quality control tests. Gore has also remained silent on an on-going grand jury investigation into allegations that employees of the North Ohio Valley Air Authority accepted bribes to find the plant in compliance with environmental restrictions.”
In fact, the Magnetic Levitation Wind Turbine simply uses PERMANENT MAGNETS to provide power equal to a small Nuclear Power Plant—at a tiny fraction of the price-tag…
The MagLev’s low-center-of-gravity = perfect for offshore = areas surrounding the US = 24/7!!!
And the MagLev's low friction = operates off of wind as slow as 3 mph!!!
Here Read:
+ Popular Science's 20th Annual Best of What's New Awards / Nanosolar Homepage:
--This honor goes to the remarkably designed PowerSheet flexible solar cells. Imagine a solar panel without the panel. Nanosolar has created an ink that takes sunlight and converts it into electricity. The ink is coated onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil with a printing-press-like device. The sheets are lighter, inexpensive and as efficient as traditional solar panels. The editors of PopSci believe that eventually every commercial rooftop could be carpeted with PowerSheet solar cells."
Wind/Solar could make very clean Hydrogen for "rainy days."
Of course, the distribution problem with Hydrogen Cars is not a problem with Hydrogen Power plants, nor with Hydrogen Jumbo Jets...
Posted by: Michael L. Wagner | June 30, 2009 3:30 PM
so what are the names of these companies that queen pelosi has invested in she goes where the $$$$$ goes!!!1
Posted by: donniel aponte' | July 13, 2009 12:32 AM