Congress is working on Climate legislation, instead of a program that would provide a framework for a new direction in the widely imitated American lifestyle, it is more business as usual.
The Waxman–Markey bill, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, emerges at a time when many Americans, and their representatives, are wary of wide-ranging environmental legislation that could raise energy costs and potentially cripple industry. The bill also comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is about to exert regulatory authority over greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The bill would pre–empt that effort and create a new cap-and-trade scheme to control carbon emissions.
The new bill would require every region of the country to produce a quarter of its electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal by 2025. A number of lawmakers from some regions of the country, particularly the Southeast, call that goal unrealistic because the natural resources and technology to meet it do not currently exist.
The bill also calls for modernization of the electrical grid, production of more electric vehicles and significant increases in efficiency in buildings, appliances and electricity generation.
But the Waxman–Markey proposal ducks two of the most difficult issues in any global warming plan, the distribution of pollution allowances and the specific timetable for achieving emissions reductions.
More from the Department of Easy Solutions. The promise of large energy supplies from wind and solar is elusive. Citizens – who consider their automobiles essential – view solar panels as toys. Both wind and solar are disbursed rather than concentrated, this makes collecting energy less appealing to the monopolists who control energy production and distribution currently.
The hardest thing to do is to take a dollar from a rich man.
While oil depletion is mentioned, addressing Peak Oil is not a part of this legislative sortie. The impression that is given is this is another cheap theatrical, that will do little to make the required changes but will give the impression that the US government is regaining a world- wide leadership role with regards to this problem … different from Bush, in other words.
The question is, at the end of the day will there be any difference between current and Bush policies other than public relations?
That was then. “This is a new day,” says the deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists‘ Climate Program, Lexi Shultz. “It was clear that the last administration was more interested in suppressing scientific information than in crafting policies to respond to climate change and other issues. The Obama administration has mentioned a number of times that science is important. The President has made it clear he understands global warming and the urgency of acting, and we’re encouraged by the early signs and have high expectations of action this year.”
Substituting so- called ‘Alternative energy’ for continued fossil fuel use is a scam. Fossil fuel use will simply rise alongside alternatives unless the carbon fuels are sanctioned. Seeing the dire straights of the auto industry means any transport alternative like the widely touted and rarely used electric car will mean more imports with little change in consumption patterns until petroleum shortfalls begin to appear.
Make no mistake about it, there will be no meaningful action on climate until auto use and overall fuel use declines sharply.