In fact, it seems like Pope, Van Noppen and Schaeffer’s concerns are with the mechanism of cap-and-trade and its effectiveness:

Instead of assuring that the oldest, least efficient, and most polluting plants are phased out, Waxman-Markey leaves that up to the cap-and-trade system created by the bill.

As Romm makes clear, the cap-and-trade system is designed to cause the phasing out of those plants. They don’t come out and say it, but it seems like Pope, Van Noppen and Schaeffer would prefer a command-and-control solution — which might be more effective at combating global warming, but is undoubtedly politically unfeasible in terms of passing legislation.

Romm manages to in two sentences sum up how the climate bill works and why it should be passed:

In the real world the much-maligned House climate and clean energy bill would do what clean energy and climate advocates have been demanding for decades: It would set up the framework to allow low-carbon technologies to compete against fairly — and thus steadily replace — existing coal at the lowest possible cost.

The interview ended up being mostly about the health care reform bill, but I wanted to post it here anyway.

I was a little disappointed with Waxman’s answers. His answers sounded very canned, as though he were answering questions from the press.

The Wonk Room also has a brief summary and transcript of remarks by Rep. Markey and Secretary of Energy Chu speaking at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Courtesy of the Nation, the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin shares her thoughts on the outlook of the climate bill. She draws an interesting comparison to the Clean Air Act and how, after the law’s passage, Congress was able to strengthen its initially weak targets by improving upon its framework.

July 21st, 2009: John Stewart Jizz-Ams in Front of Children

Another clip and an interview with Energy Secretary Steven Chu after the fold.

July 21st, 2009: Greener Postures

July 21st, 2009: Steven Chu

Gov. Palin’s Misleading Washington Post Op-ed (Media Matters Action Network)
A handy fact check with helpful links debunking Palin’s most spurious claims and providing actual analysis on the costs of the climate bill.

Palin eschews facts and economics in blasting cap-and-trade bill (Grist)
Grist’s executive editor Russ Walker has a point-by-point rebuttal of Palin’s piece, neatly summed up thusly:

Palin’s thesis comes loaded with plenty of rhetoric and zero facts. It offers nothing more than assertions about the emissions reduction part of the bill, ignores the energy investment and green jobs provisions, blames “Washington bureaucrats” for hampering oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (not Congress, where elected lawmakers have repeatedly expressed the American public’s desire to keep ANWR off limits), and fails to even take note of the underlying issue—catastrophic climate change.

What Gov. Palin Forgot (Huffington Post)
Senator Kerry points out that Palin fails to even mention the crisis of global warming, despite its already disruptive effects in Alaska, before going on to emphasize the environmental, economic and security costs of inaction.

An op-ed on Guantanamo policy that fails to acknowledge the existence of terrorists would not be taken seriously. Neither should an op-ed on energy reform that fails to mention the irrefutable reality of climate change.

And, unfortunately, even in the areas Gov. Palin does focus on, she gets things wrong. She focuses on energy production, but ignores the huge expansion of new, clean energy sources made possible through smart energy reform legislation.

Sarah Palin Does Not Understand Cap and Trade (The Daily Dish)
In addition to pointing out that revenues generated from the cap and trade mechanism are designed to benefit the poorest quintile of Americans, Conor Clarke recaps some Econ 101 for Governor Palin’s benefit.

The point of cap and trade is to solve a problem of social cost: As an energy consumer, I am imposing a cost on society (pollution) that I do not take into account when I make the original decision to consume.

This happens all the time. My decision to drive creates traffic that imposes a cost on society. A company’s decision to fish in the ocean imposes a cost on the world’s common stock of fisheries. A banker’s decision to take on a huge amount of risk creates danger for the economy as a whole. The problem is that none of these private actors adequately bears the cost of their decisions. So, the usual solution is to increase the price of these decisions — with congestion charges, or private property rights, or taxes — so that private consumers take into account social costs.

Palin’s Recipe for Baked Alaska (NRDC Switchboard)
NRDC’s Climate Campaign Director Pete Altman weighs in with the effects of dirty energy and global warming on Palin’s home state, as documented by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Washington Post, Fred Hiatt turn op-ed page into a “joke” with yet another falsehood-filled piece attacking climate action and clean energy — by GOP quitter-in-chief Sarah “Four Pinocchios” Palin! (Climate Progress)
Joe Romm has a great tirade calling out the Post for its lack of journalistic integrity, and also refutes Palin’s contention that cap-and-trade would stunt economic recovery in the short term.

Let’s set aside the rather obvious fact that the bill that doesn’t even start imposing a cap until 2012, so it’s absurd to assert it will “undermine our recovery over the short term.” The reverse case is, in fact, stronger — see Nobelist Krugman attacks “junk economics”: Climate action “now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump” by giving “businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities.”

Moreover, even in 2012, the total value of the allowances will be under $50 billion (in a $15 trillion economy) and all that money is going to be returned to the economy, so again, like all economic models show, the bill will have no significant negative impact.

This morning, half a dozen youth in strongmen costumes showed up to pump iron and flex their climate bill “muscles” in Dirksen 406. Why? Because the first post-ACES Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on climate legislation took place there at 10 am today.
I was surprised to see such a clever ploy espousing that Congress must pass a stronger climate bill than the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last Friday, June 26th.

During the hearing the strongmen proceeded with their “climate bill workout” to illustrate the metaphor of strengthening the bill and encouraging Senators to “flex their own legislative muscles.” These antics were not only amusing and set a very friendly and light-hearted tone to the hearing, it clearly pushed the issue of creating a “strong” bill. They are pushing to buff up the climate bill which will prove to the world that the U.S. is serious about stopping global warming–and persuade our country and others to agree to an effective and equitable global climate treaty in Copenhagen this December. As articulated by the trainer to his brawny trainees, “Now, let’s build up the muscles for our strong, global climate treaty!”

And, if the muscle suits didn’t allude to the issue enough, each muscleman wore a t-shirt with “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger” on them. The popular song by Daft Punk, later remade by Kanye West, correlated with the more specific asks of harder oversight on coal plants, better renewable portfolio standard and investments in international adaptation, faster emissions reduction targets and, more generally, stronger leadership and a stronger bill.

This action was also paired up with a series of deliveries to the offices of the Environment and Public Works Committee members. Later in the afternoon, the same strongmen traveled from office to office, delivering custom designed 5lb weights all encouraging the Senators to bulk up the meat of the climate bill and “lose 40% of carbon emission fat.” The 5lb dumbbells themselves represented the 5-5-5% targets for the international provisions in the bill. The dumbbells also had best exercising practices and even recommended that Congress “consult its personal trainer, the EPA, periodically to keep on track with the science.”
The connections between a total body workout and creating a binding treaty were both humorous and clever and I personally thought it was amusing to have a play off of the American culture of desiring a fit body by eating hamburgers and drinking diet soda. This, much like our current climate bill and Congressional process, is not a way to achieve our “target weight.” It is wonderful to see the youth climate movement pushing our senators to be more aggressive right off the bat with the first hearing in a fun and witty way that turns heads and demands the real targets our national and international communities need.

A big thanks goes to 1Sky’s Rhiya Trivedi (rhiya {at} 1sky.org), with guidance from Jason Kowalski (jason {at} 1sky.org) for putting this together!!

1Sky is relieved by the House of Representatives’ passing of the American Clean Energy and Security Act in a close 219-212 vote last Friday. 1Sky activists sent more than 18,000 faxes to Members of Congress in 390 districts to convince them to strengthen and support the clean energy bill. Additionally, 1Sky enthusiasts logged 1,600 phone calls to their members of Congress to make sure they heard from constituents who care about a clean energy future. Over 900 1Sky members in 49 states and the District of Columbia signed up to visit their congressional district offices on June 19 to urge their elected representative to strengthen and support the energy bill. 570 climate activists sent letters-to-the-editor urging support of bold climate change legislation.

In the days preceding the vote, key Democratic representatives and members of President Obama’s Cabinet worked hard off the floor to whip up last minute votes, while strong grassroots pressure helped log thousands of calls and faxes to Congress from across the country, so many that the congressional switchboard was shut down. While Chairman Waxman, Representative Markey, and all who worked to get the votes and pass the bill deserve much gratitude for this historic victory, a great deal of work remains to be done in the Senate to pass the strongest climate legislation possible, and grassroots voices will have to be louder than ever in the coming months to demand it.

Read more for the great analysis!

Thanks to 1Sky’s Rhiya Trivedi (rhiya@1sky.org), with guidance from Jason Kowalski (jason@1sky.org) for this report:

Lead Up to the Vote

Deal struck with Agriculture Committee

• After days of backdoor negotiations between House Speaker Pelosi (D-Cali.), Agriculture Chairman Peterson (D-Minn.) and Energy and Commerce Chairman Waxman (D-Cali.), a compromise was finally reached:
  • Authority over the approval and issuance of agricultural offsets was given to the Department of Agriculture
  • EPA has been banned from regulating “indirect land use emissions” from the domestic production of biofuels
  • The “renewable biomass” definitions was made significantly broader, with stripped down language and fewer restrictions on qualifying sources
• The compromise moved several key “Ag” Committee members and representatives from farm states to support the bill and ultimately, help bring about a victory on the floor.
• Environmentalists have expressed concerns over the agreement however, citing the USDA’s history of approving offsets for projects that would have normally occurred and the potential for unsustainable biomass practices to continue under the new bill.
• Grist’s take on the deal: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/

Amendments

• More than 220 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, which were filtered into a Manager’s Amendment and released early Friday morning.
• The Manager’s Amendment included significant quantities of new funding to increase renewable energy deployment and ease worker and industry transition, in addition to strengthening the presence of natural resource conservation, minorities and marginalized groups in the bill.
• Weakened components included pieces already decided upon in the Agriculture Committee compromise: provisions to solidify free allowances for merchant coal, and adding new language that would spur inquiry into “thorium based fuel reactors” (a form of nuclear energy generation)
• 1Sky Draft Analysis of the Manager’s Amendment: http://www.1sky.org/blog/2009/06/draft-summary-waxman-markey-managers-ammendment
• Grist’s breakdown of included amendments: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-waxman-final-amendments/

Getting the Votes

• Off the floor, phone calls were being made, and private meetings held to round up key swing votes by:
  • Speaker Pelosi’s (D-Cali.) team of Democratic whips including Democratic Leadership like Rep Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Energy and Commerce members like Reps Rush (D-Ill.), Inslee (D-Wash.), Boucher (D-Va.), Waxman (D-Calif.) and Markey (D-Mass.)
  • Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
  • President Obama and Former Vice President Al Gore: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-pelosi-climate-bill-votes/
  • Responding to outreach from grassroots groups, constituents bombarded their congressional offices with calls and faxes, demanding that the strongest bill possible be passed:
• Green For All on grassroots pressure strengthening equity in the Manager’s amendment: http://www.greenforall.org/blog/1-000-calls-in-48-hours-paid-off-equity-in-aces
• 1Sky’s Gillian Caldwell recounts growth in the grassroots movement around ACES: http://www.1sky.org/blog/2009/06/breaking-house-passes-clean-energy-and-climate-bill
• In an unprecedented statement, the League of Conservation Voters vowed to withhold their valuable endorsements from any representative who voted in opposition to ACES: http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0609/LCV_No_endorsement_for_climate_bill_foes_.html

Floor Debate and Vote

Debate

• For six hours on Friday afternoon, representatives debated not only the various costs and benefits of the bill, but the validity of climate change and the need for American leadership on climate. Highlights:
• Progressive Media USA’s one minute video summary: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-29-house-climate-debate-minute/
• House Majority Leader Hoyer’s (D-Md.) address: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-27-hoyer-waxman-markey-speech/
• Rep. Broun (R-Ga.) receives a standing ovation for calling climate change a “hoax”: http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/26/rep-broun-receives-applause-on-the-house-floor-for-calling-global-warming-a-%E2%80%98hoax%E2%80%99/
• Minority Leader Boehner (R-Oh.) filibusters the vote for more than an hour by reading portions of the Manager’s Amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc6zy41_PJo
• Rep. Bachmann (R-Minn.) called the difference between the ACES bill and the GOP energy bill a choice between “liberty and tyranny”
  • Vote: – Final roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml – 219 votes for, 211 against:
  • 44 Democrats voted against the bill
  • 8 Republicans voted yes (8 more than the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act received) • New York Times map: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/477
  • National Journal map: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20090627_4694.php – What passage means:
  • An international agreement (Former Vice President Al Gore): http://blog.algore.com/2009/06/a_historic_opportunity.html
  • The bigger picture (Joe Romm): http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/26/house-approves-landmark-bipartisan-clean-energy-and-climate-bill-final-vote-waxman-markey/

ACES in the Senate

Friday’s House passage could not have been achieved without GOP votes. The significant number of Democrats voting against ACES only serves to highlight the challenges the bill may face in the Senate, and the need for continued bipartisan support.

• White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod says Senate will pass energy bill, despite not having 60 votes at the present: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24292.html
• According to E&E news, there are currently 45 “yes” or “probably yes” votes (including Republican Sens. Snowe and Collins of Maine), with 23 fence sitters. More bipartisan support is likely to come with greater compromise outside of the cap-and-trade portion of the bill. GOP support may be found in Sens. Michael Crapo (R-Ida.), Brownback (R-Kan.) and Voinovich (R-Oh.) Subscription Req’d: http://eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/06/29/2/
• Committees with jurisdiction over the bill (Environment and Public Works, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Natural Resources, Finance and Foreign Relations) have been given a Sept. 18 deadline by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to produce their pieces of the bill
  • Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Cali.) has said that she now aims to have her committee mark up climate legislation by the end of July (Greenwire)
  • Energy and Natural Resources Committee – The Committee passed a bill two weeks ago featuring provisions that would impose a 15% by 2020 RES (with up to 4% coming from efficiency), establish a wide range of efficiency standards, and boost green jobs training. Also included are liability protections for parties investing in carbon capture and sequestration projects, a significantly smaller offshore drilling buffer in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, protection for oil from the Canadian tar sands, and a nuclear energy title that would support reactors as viable, emissions-reducing technology.
• It is currently unclear as to what the calendar for the “American Clean Energy and Leadership Act of 2009″ is in the weeks before a floor debate
• Most climate advocates, including 1Sky, are refusing to support the bill in its current form, and will seek floor improvements to increase renewable energy deployment and eliminate safeguards for fossil fuels.

See our letter to the Committee here: http://www.1sky.org/blog/2009/06/senate-committee-passes-disappointing-energy-bill-heres-how-to-make-it-stronger

Important New Reports

• New CBO Analysis on Household Costs from ACES, quotes $175 in annual costs for the average household:http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10327
• EPA’s ACES analysis, quotes $111 in annual costs for the average household: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/economicanalyses.html

The fact that the democrats keep pushing this as “jobs bill” is great (with the hope that they are well-paying, equitable jobs) and I know it helps make the bill more politically viable, but I think it is sad that the focus isn’t actually what the bill is really about: climate change. Of course, climate change is not a challenge that the American people are ready to face full on yet, so framing the issue in terms of jobs will be helpful in that sense.

The bill got the votes it needed to pass today, but only by a narrow margin. This is a huge step forward for climate legislation in the United States, but there is more work to be done to help it pass the Senate.

Tally sheet of how each representative voted

Ayes: 219
Nays: 212

Republicans who voted aye: 8
Democrats who voted nay: 44