Clean Energy Legislation: Part II

On June 26, 2009 the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 was passed by the House of Representatives, by June of 2010 the Senate decided that it would not be considering any climate change legislation. The House approval of the bill, created by two members of Congress, Representatives Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) and Edward J. Markey (D-MA), marked the "first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change." But because of the Senate's decision not to consider the energy bill, it has been put on hold for the past year defeating any hopes of having higher standards placed on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

The bill, now widely known as the "cap and trade bill", proposed that the government set a limit on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted nationally from 2012-2050. Companies that emit these gases would then be allowed to buy and sell permits that specify the amount of greenhouse gases they can continue to emit. The bill also includes provisions on electric utilities, requiring they meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources by 2020. The bill also offers almost $200 billion worth of subsidies in clean energy fields such as renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration, electric and advanced technology vehicles, and basic scientific research and development. The bill would also set higher standards on emissions requiring a 17 percent emissions reduction of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases by 2020. With these and other valuable provisions, the American Clean Energy and Security Act would have provided the country with a drastic improvement in clean energy legislation.

Among those opposed to the bill are, without surprise, oil and gas producers, various coal mining groups, groups concerned with fiscal and tax policy, and many policy makers that feel the bill will cost too much money and create drastic spikes in energy prices. Others opposed to the bill believe that unless India and China jump on board as well the impact the bill will have on global climate change will not be enough. Whatever the reason individuals or interest groups choose to dislike the bill, it is clear that there is currently more opposition than support, a truth that is disheartening to say the least.

With the recent spike in gas prices government officials have been scurrying to try and find a solution. It is clear that our dependence on foreign oil and non-renewable energy resources will continue to result in unstable prices. If we continue to rely on oil and gas as our main source of energy it will be impossible to become 100% energy independent. Because of this it is important to realize that it is not just the environment supporters of this bill are looking out for, but the future of this country as well. I'll be the first to admit that I am tired of paying 70 bucks at the pump every time I fill up my tank, but what I am also tired of is politicians telling us that the only solution to the problem is to "drill baby drill!"