GLOBAL WARMING

[audtatious]

http://www.dallasnews.com/shar....html

FROM WIRE REPORTS The Associated Press, Los Angeles Times and Cox News Service contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON – From higher electric bills to more expensive gasoline, the possible economic cost of tackling global warming will take center stage in the Senate today.

Legislation requiring a reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power plants, refineries, factories and transportation is set for debate. The goal is to cut heat-trapping pollution by two-thirds by midcentury.

Depending on who's talking, the bill could either help save the planet or help bankrupt the country.

Texas could be one of the hardest-hit states, pro-business groups said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who sponsored the bill with Sen. John Warner, R-Va., calls the bill the nation's next Manhattan Project, which created the atomic bomb, or its next race to the moon.

Proponents say the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act could reduce global warming by requiring power companies, manufacturers and others to dramatically cut their emissions and shift from fossil fuels to more expensive renewable energy sources by 2012.

But opponents, led by big-business groups, say the costs of the plan could send the economy into free-fall.

"We're bankrupting our economy for very little gain" if the legislation passes, said Keith McCoy, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, which strongly opposes the legislation.

Gas prices could hit $8 a gallon and home electricity bills could rise by 150 percent, the group predicts.

Texas, Florida and Georgia could be among the hardest-hit states because of their current energy sources and their size.

The economic hit to Texas could force companies to cut as many as 335,000 jobs to pay for added costs, according to the manufacturers' group. Only California would see more job losses, it predicts.

Supporters of the bill say that if the U.S. doesn't quickly do something to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the cost could be even worse.

"We still have the opportunity to avoid damages [from global warming], but our window of opportunity is running out," said Dan Lashof, global warming specialist at the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "What we need is a comprehensive national [strategy]."

In its own study, the NRDC predicts that real estate losses, higher energy and water costs, and other problems related to global warming could result in $3.8 trillion in economic losses by the end of the century if the climate legislation isn't passed.

"If you think it's expensive to do something about climate change, this tells you how expensive it will be to do nothing about climate change," said Tufts University economist Frank Ackerman, who conducted the NRDC study.

The debate on global warming is viewed as a watershed in climate-change politics. Yet both sides acknowledge that the prospects for passage are slim this election year.

Several GOP senators are promising a filibuster; the bill's supporters doubt they can find the 60 votes to overcome the delaying tactic.

The legislation is not as strong as some Democrats, including presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like. They want cuts in carbon-dioxide emissions of 80 percent by 2050.

Other lawmakers believe the bill goes too far, too fast. They fear it will outpace development of the technology needed to make the shift from fossil fuels, causing energy prices to soar.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the likely GOP presidential nominee, recently announced a less ambitious plan to cut greenhouse emissions 60 percent by 2050. He has not said whether he will support the Senate bill.

Big polluters would be required to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions – the "cap" part of the plan – by 4 percent below 2005 levels by 2012 and by 71 percent by 2050.

Some of the biggest polluters would be given carbon "credits" they could use to soften the blow of new carbon reduction requirements. They also would get billions of dollars in government assistance.

If they still couldn't meet their caps, companies could purchase more credits through a government auction, or buy and sell them – the "trade" part of the plan – through a new stock-market-like system regulated by the government.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't Pelosi and others promise lower gas prices if they "took over"? Gas was in the mid $2.50 range at that time. What about the carbon credits they talk about, kinda look like a ploy for big-Gov to get more tax money from corporations (which will penalize "the people"). Why are environmentalists against replacing current CO2 pumping coal plants with clean-coal plants?

Our Gov is full if fawking idiots.

[rn79870]

Quote »Proponents say the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act could reduce global warming by requiring power companies, manufacturers and others to dramatically cut their emissions and shift from fossil fuels to more expensive renewable energy sources by 2012.[/quote]This knee jerk reaction to a problem scares me. Are they so nearsighted that they can't see the overall picture. Let's stop producing food in favor of renewable fuels and then we can import food along with oil. It's not unlike killing the patient to get rid of a cold.

[audtatious]

Just think of all the good things the Gov can do with the additional tax and tariff revenue by such ventures.

[mtcookson]

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, pushing debate over the world's biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president.ADVERTISEMENT

Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote, prompting Majority Leader Harry Reid to pull the legislation from consideration.

The Senate debate focused on bitter disagreement over the expected economic costs of putting a price on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas that comes from burning fossil fuels. Opponents said it would lead to higher energy costs.

The 48-36 vote fell short of a majority, but Democrats produced letters from six senators — including both presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain — saying they would have voted for the measure had they been there.

"It's just the beginning for us," proclaimed Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a chief sponsor of the bill, noting that 54 senators had expressed support of the legislation, although that's still short of what would be needed to overcome concerted GOP opposition.

"It's clear a majority of Congress wants to act," Boxer said at a news conference.

She and other Democrats said this now lays the groundwork for action on climate change next year with a new Congress and a new president that will be more hospitable to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions.

Both Obama and McCain have called for capping carbon dioxide and other emissions linked to climate change. President Bush has opposed such measures and said he would have vetoed the Senate bill if he had received it.

The bill would have capped carbon dioxide coming from power plants, refineries and factories, with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century.

"It's a huge tax increase," argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal."

Supporters of the bill accused Republicans of muddying the water with misinformation.

"There is no tax increase," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., one of the bill's chief sponsors said. She said the emissions trading system would provide tax relief to help people pay energy prices. And supporters disputed that it would substantially increase gasoline prices.

Four Democrats joined most Republicans in essentially killing the bill.

Obama and McCain, as well as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is recovering from cancer surgery, were absent, although they each sent a letter supporting the bill.

[audtatious]

"There is no tax increase," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., one of the bill's chief sponsors said. She said the emissions trading system would provide tax relief to help people pay energy prices. And supporters disputed that it would substantially increase gasoline prices.

I like that. Companies are penalized for producing carbon output while creating a product that is needed or wanted by the public. There will be a huge amount of gov spending needed to implement the "governing" of carbon credits, but that requires no additional tax money? What about the additional cost to the public for these products or will they implement further penalties to corporations to limit what they can charge to actually make a profit?