Here are two quotes from the NYTimes online today:
“”The bill contains provisions to protect consumers, keep costs low, help sensitive industries transition to a clean energy economy and promote domestic emission reduction efforts,” the White House in a statement of support for the legislation.”
“This “amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change,” said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.”
The House narrowly passed the climate change legislation that has been floating about Washington, causing all kinds of fighting, in-fighting, and outcasting. It passed 217-205. Huffington Post sums up the intentions of the bill well: “The climate change bill would reset drastically the way the U.S. government approaches the issue of regulating pollution. Instituting a cap and trade system, the bill aims to cut America’s production of greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050. The legislation also includes provisions to create alternative energy sources and cleaner technologies, as well as more efficient building standards.” The success of any such bill remains to be seen, as well as the form the bill will take in the Senate.
Critical/Ecological is happy that the bill passed, despite the increase in costs that will inevitably come, because C/E believes that without paying something now, we will pay a lot more than money later. It remains tricky to defend the bill to individuals who defy any tax increases (as I found out today at work when asked: “Tell me how taking my money will help me live a more green life?” Which denotes quite a different view of what this bill is for than say, the bill itself). The bottom line is this :it will cost money to reduce our production of Greenhouse Gases.
Unfortunately, the need to cut down GHGs on a massive scale (really massive) is still too much of a debated point. If one doesn’t believe this need is real or urgent, why would one support it? There are reasons not to support it if you do accept climate change (for instance, the bill is too weak and doesn’t take big enough steps). But there is no reason to support fighting climate change if one takes the view that, as a friend put it, “I believe that global warming is a fraud based on the views of a few well meaning scientists.”
Anyway, it is the first step towards the passage of major climate change legislation. We’ll see what happens in the Senate. But today, on both sides, emotions are running high.
