Climate Change Bill

U.S. To Pass Climate Change Bill Friday

CBO says cap and trade bill will cut energy costs for most households

Breakthrough: The BookThe newspapers here in the U.S. are reporting today that the Senate Democrats believe that they have the votes to pass a sweeping, enormous (about 1,200 pages worth of enormous) climate change bill when it comes to a vote on Friday. This comes on the heels of a press conference where President Barack Obama hit heavily on the theme that we need to do something about global warming and climate change. According to the various news reports, Senators Waxman (D., CA) and Markey (D., MA), sponsors of the bill, believe that they have the votes to pass the bill after they've worked hard to reach compromises with those from farming states.

The news that most folks want to hear, though, is buried deep in most news stories - if it's there at all. A couple of months back, those who oppose the cap-and-trade bill were throwing around a $3,000 figure as "cost to the average household" if this bill were passed. The Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency are contesting that figure - bigtime. The CBO estimates that by 2020, the changes mandated in the climate change bill may cost the average household about $175 a year, while the lowest income households will see a $40 drop in energy costs annually with these changes.

The EPA's figures are even prettier. According to their estimates, the average household will pay between $80 and $111 a year - but, they add, because of efficiency requirements in the bill, average energy costs for households will actually be about 7% lower in 2020 than they would be if the climate change bill doesn't pass.

Interestingly, one of the most interesting takes on the climate change bill is one espoused by The Breakthrough Institute, which calls itself "the small think tank with big ideas". According to the Breakthrough Institute, we're approaching the problem of carbon emissions in exactly the wrong way; that regulating carbon emissions and making coal and carbon fuel energy more expensive is NOT the best way to increase the investment in green energy by private institutions; that instead, the U.S. government should be making massive investments in green energy research to make those methods of generating energy cheaper. As they point out, the personal computer didn't succeed by making the typewriter more expensive.

Of course, this is precisely the wrong time to be talking about massive spending on researching anything. And yet, last night I found myself thinking about the Space Race in the 1960s - the last time I can remember the country being solidly enthusiastic and invested and PROUD in something our country was doing. That was where President Obama's words on energy production and leading the world in green energy production hit me yesterday - as a matter of national pride and leadership.

I'm wondering what you think. Where should we - not just the U.S., but the world at large - where should we be focusing our efforts? Is it more effective to regulate, penalize and make carbon energy more expensive? Will that spark private industry to innovate? Or is it exactly the opposite? Do we need to be dangling carrots and investing money in energy innovation to reduce carbon emissions and reverse - or at least slow - global warming?