By Luis Hestres
We already discussed this on the blog earlier this week, but it's worth mentioning here again since 1Sky is about federal solutions, after all. Two prominent House Democrats introduced climate legislation this week—and unfortunately, it falls short of what we'd call 'bold climate action':
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Energy and Air Quality subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.) released a 461-page bill that seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 80 percent over the next four decades. Environmental groups welcomed that target, but criticized the bill, which Dingell and Boucher refer to as a “discussion draft,” for delaying dramatic emissions reductions until after 2020.
The long-awaited legislation relies on a so-called cap-and-trade program to make those reductions. Companies would be able to buy or sell emissions allowances on an open market, depending on whether they met or exceeded emissions caps set by federal regulators.
. . . . .
Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for Environmental Defense Fund, said the initial emissions cuts called for in the bill are too gradual. Polluters would only have to reduce emissions by 6 percent over 2005 levels by 2020, a much less aggressive target than the climate change bill the Senate debated earlier this summer.
“The short-term targets really tell people out in the marketplace that they need to get going,” Kreindler said.
Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, noted in an e-mail to reporters that the discussion draft includes the option for federal preemption, something that the liberal elements of the Democratic Party and environmental groups have opposed. The bill could block California and other states from going forward with ongoing efforts to cut carbon dioxide from tailpipe emissions, which Dingell, a big backer of the auto industry, has opposed.