TPMDC
« Going To Buenos Aires In His Mind... | Home | Grassley: Public Option And Bipartisanship Just Don't Mix »

Climate Change Bill Set For Passage In House After Concessions

The Waxman-Markey climate change bill will come to the floor of the House at the end of this week after a weeks-long dispute between the bill's chief author, Henry Waxman, and House Agriculture Committee chairman Colin Peterson.

Peterson had been threatening to whip farm-state Democrats to vote against--and therefore kill--the bill unless Waxman agreed to significant changes (subscription required).

Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) told reporters today he would vote for the House climate bill -- and bring dozens of rural lawmakers with him -- after Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) agreed to make a number of concessions that had drawn the ire of farm state members.

Waxman agreed to put the Agriculture Department -- rather than U.S. EPA -- in the lead for management of the offset program that pays farmers and other landowners to conduct environmentally friendly projects. Congress will turn to the Obama administration for guidance on how to fold in EPA.

Waxman also consented to block EPA from calculating "indirect" greenhouse gas emissions from land-use changes when implementing the federal biofuels mandate. The Democrats will impose a five-year moratorium to allow further study of the issue, with consultation from Congress, EPA, the Energy Department and USDA instrumental in restarting the measurements in the biofuels rules.

No word yet on if or when the Senate plans to take its own chainsaws to the bill.


5 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

The "indirect" greenhouse gas emissions issue is huge. When you factor those in you find out that the net benefit of biofuels is almost nil.

user-pic

Not to mention that biofuels such as ethanol don't produce as much energy as their production requires.

So why are we messing around with this stuff? Let's switch all cars and light trucks to hydrogen and tell the oil companies to go screw themselves. If they don't want to be part of the future, they can be part of the past.

user-pic

You obviously don't know where hydrogen comes from.

user-pic

Uh, so where does hydrogen come from?

It's hard to take a comment like this seriously. I'm assuming you're not referring to the Big Bang or the photospheres of stars as a source of hydrogen, even though those are two "wheres" (or "whens") that hydrogen "comes from". More prosaically, hydrogen can be sourced from the electrolysis of water or from fractionating fossil fuels (natural gas, oil, coal). The power for those chemical reactions can in turn come from a variety of sources, including the burning of other fossil fuel, photovoltaic, solar thermal, geothermal, wind, etc.

So what's your point?

user-pic

It's important to remember that the ethanol federal funding started out in the "synfuels" category to find substitutes for oil, and proponents only tried to claim it was "green" years later when that became fashionable. It's hard to kill because it was already a well-established boondoggle when they weren't trying to make an environmental argument, so just taking away that argument isn't likely to do the trick now.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Brian
Beutler

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address