Comments on: ACES wild! House Dems release 1,201-page climate bill with floor debate scheduled for Friday

By: Craig Severance

Craig Severance — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:26:30 +0000

One reason why it’s so nip-and-tuck to pass this Bill is that it is hard for anyone in the general public to look at the Bill and see a clear and immediate benefit, especially something to help us out of this deep and worsening recession. Instead the main focus is on new emissions regulations. We all know where this leads (to green jobs) but the link is not direct & immediate.

It could help tremendously if someone is savvy enough to add the Architecture 2030 Plan to the Bill. This is a serious proposal by prominent architects, builders, banks et. al. to revitalize the housing industry (currently at 20% unemployment!) by providing mortgage interest buydowns for homes and remodels that meet greatly improved energy efficiency standards.

http://energyeconomyonline.com/Architecture_2030_Plan.html

The housing industry was promised a stimulus bill of its own which never materialized. The Architecture 2030 Plan, if added to Waxman-Markey, would give a lot of wavering Congressmen and Senators “a reason to vote for the bill” that their constituents could understand. Architecture 2030 calculates its Plan could put over 4 million people to work — that’s a good reason to vote for Waxman/Markey if you get that Plan into this Bill.

By: Peter Croft

Peter Croft — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:08:00 +0000

“… It is simply a false hope that one could pass “simple” legislation to substantially remove carbon dioxide and other GHGs from the entire US economy in under four decades while transitioning to a clean energy economy.]”

This is not our experience in the UK. We are on course for 23% below 1990 levels and with no perceptible pain. These savings have been achieved by simple things like building insulation, appliance eficiency standards, the renewable power generation obligation etc. If the UK can do it I am absolutely sure the US can, given the profligate use of energy on your side of the pond.

[JR: Your comment is non-responsive. In general, I'm not thrilled with people who misstate what I write in order to attack it. I have always argued that simple measures will reduce emissions. A national climate and clean energy bill for a country as large as the United States, however, ain't gonna be simple.]

By: Chris Winter

Chris Winter — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:55:49 +0000

Whoops, actually that goof came straight from E&E News…

By: Chris Winter

Chris Winter — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:49:30 +0000

Joe Romm wrote: “Waxman has agreed to the 0.5 percent of allocations for small electric utilities that have under 4 million megawatts of capacity…” (emphasis added)

I assume you mean either “4 Megawatts” or “4 million Watts.”

By: Alan Durning

Alan Durning — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:01:50 +0000

Jim Beacon: The length of the bill is irrelevant. Only the quality matters. The sections of it I’ve reviewed are very clean lawmaking — no monkey business.

By: Jim Beacon

Jim Beacon — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:29:34 +0000

Oh, great. Now it’s over 1,200 pages. I know it’s not quite the same thing, but how many pages was the Kyoto treaty? I doubt that whatever comes out of Copenhagen will be even 100 pages. With this kind of totally unnecessary complexity, there simply must be all kinds of heinous sub-clauses buried in there. Eventually we’ll probably find there are hundreds of things like $500 million being allocated to develop a “clean-energy duck farm” in the woods behind the country estate of some congress person’s friend.

[JR: Kyoto was a treaty, not an implementation plan. The fair comparison is the Clean Air Act and its amendments, which I would urge you to spend some time reading. It doesn't matter whether it is 1200 pages or 200 pages -- the powers that be can stick in annoying clauses. It is simply a false hope that one could pass "simple" legislation to substantially remove carbon dioxide and other GHGs from the entire US economy in under four decades while transitioning to a clean energy economy.]

By: Doug Gibson

Doug Gibson — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:55:12 +0000

Progressive Democrats of America – the grassroots arm of the House Progressive Caucus – has already sent out an e-mail to its members. They’re asking them to contact their representatives and tell them that unless the bill is strengthened, they should vote “no.”