Container Top
Search

Events Calendar

EVENT SEARCH:

In This Section


Most Read Stories


Blogs:


First Bell - On Education:
No City of Akron basketball tonight

Pets:
Pet telethon re-airs

The Heldenfiles:
NBC Releases Olympics Announcer List

Akron Zips:
Zips favored on road against MAC West leader

Tribe Matters:
Blogmail response on Hafner

Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth's contract terminated

Balanced Ledger:
Kent State Sports:
KSU Notes – February 9

Cleveland Cavaliers:
NBA Power Rankings from Around the Internet

Buckeye Blogging:
Buckeyes grab 18 players on signing day

Varsity Letters:
Five local gridders to play in Big33

All Da King's Men:
Palin At The Tea Party Convention

Blog of Mass Destruction:
Republican Pre-Conditions

Akron Law Café:
Law, Love and Chocolate

Car Chase:
Collector Car Hobby Loses One of the Best—Jim Roll

Let's Talk Real Estate:
Decisions Decisions: Credit Cards or Your Mortgage?

Ohio Travels with Betty:
Loucile is looking for a Lake Erie getaway in June for three kids, ages 1, 3, and 5.

Sound Check:
Talk of the Town – Top entertainment picks for the weekend

HRLite House:
OFCCP Report

Akron Gamer:
Makers of 'Castle Crashers' unveil 'BattleBlock Theater'

See Jane Style:
Do IT this week: Layering

Climate debate in House focuses on cost

Science is relegated to back seat. Parties seek compromise

By Dina Cappiello and
H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press

WASHINGTON: As Congress begins to debate climate change in earnest, the science is taking a back seat to economics: How much will it cost to slow the Earth's warming because of man-made pollution — and what's the cost of doing nothing?

With a key House committee starting four days of hearings, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., vowed to get a climate bill approved this year. Noting that Earth Day will be celebrated today, she told reporters that by the next Earth Day, ''we want to celebrate what we've done this year'' to address climate change and clean energy.

But the challenge of getting bipartisan support immediately became apparent.

The Energy and Commerce Committee hearing had barely begun when Republicans raised their concerns about higher energy prices produced by putting an added price for burning fossil fuels.

''In its current form, this bill may do more harm to our economy than any bill that is likely to come before Congress for the rest of this year, or perhaps during my natural lifetime,'' declared Rep. Michael C. Burgess, R-Texas.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., whose state's already is reeling economically and home to energy-intensive industries, said the economic impact of the bill drafted by Democrats ''cannot be overstated'' unless ways are found to blunt expected increases in energy costs.

The Democratic proposal calls for broad limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, meaning energy from fossil fuels, especially coal in the production of electricity, will become more expensive. It would cut greenhouse gases by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by midcentury.

The bill also includes a string of measures aimed at reducing the use of fossil energy such as requiring utilities to produce a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources, and calling for tougher standards to promote energy efficiency.

The proposed ''cap-and-trade'' system would limit greenhouse gas emissions and allow industries to buy and sell emissions credits in the open market to make it easier, and less expensive, to comply with the emissions ceiling.

A key question yet to be resolved is how the government should make available pollution permits: Sell all at an auction or provide them for free to industries most greatly affected such as coal-burning power plants and energy intensive industries.

''We need to talk that through with our members,'' said Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

President Barack Obama wants all of the permits auctioned off with billions of dollars in auction proceeds to blunt the cost hikes of electricity and other energy as fossil-fuel generated energy becomes more expensive.

The Environmental Protection Agency in a preliminary review of the House draft said the emission reduction can come at a relatively small cost — as little as $13 a ton of carbon dioxide — in 2015.

WASHINGTON: As Congress begins to debate climate change in earnest, the science is taking a back seat to economics: How much will it cost to slow the Earth's warming because of man-made pollution — and what's the cost of doing nothing?

Get the full article here.


Story tools

Email  Email   Print  Print   Save  Save   Reprint  Reprint   Popular  Most Popular   Reprint  Subscribe

Share this story

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


ed

Posted 07:09 AM, 04/22/2009

When will the pols realize that they are not all powerfull. Man cannot change the earths climate


The Fat Painter
uniontown, oh

Posted 07:21 AM, 04/22/2009

ed

Your wood is all wet!

Man is kiling mother earth!

In the 70's they told us that we were heading for an ice age!

In the 90's Al Gore (who by the way invented the internet) told us that the world was heating up by a half a degree.
Now we are to learn that the reason most of the world set record cold temps this past winter was because it is getting warmer. Go figure!


Betamax
Akron, OH

Posted 08:02 AM, 04/22/2009

Great. More pollution controls.

For over thirty years our politicians have passed bills on pollution, and all they can tell us, is all of the previous fix-all bills haven't worked, and now they have a new idea.


MaD
Mogadore, OH

Posted 08:57 AM, 04/22/2009

Gee, remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire? Remember when they stopped putting lead in gasoline, and paint? Do you know why these things happened?














Most Commented Stories