Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Dingell climate plan would punch California, other states

Here is a link to the new draft climate legislation released yesterday by Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and his colleague, Rep. Rick Boucher.

Some quick thoughts:

We are encouraged that Reps. Dingell and Boucher have finally produced something concrete with good long-term goals. (Though the short-term goals are completely inadequate.)

However, we are extremely concerned about “options” that would repeal the Supreme Court decision on global warming as well as kill state authority to set greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles. See section 816.

One option would subordinate EPA authority over greenhouse gases to the more industry-friendly Department of Transportation. (Dingell tried this gambit in last year’s energy bill. House Speaker Pelosi swatted him down.) Another would eliminate EPA authority altogether. A third would eliminate the right of California to set greenhouse gas vehicle standards as well as the right of other states to set California standards.

These options are straight from the playbook of the Big Three. They appear to have been drafted in the boardroom of General Motors.

By presenting them as “options,” Dingell appears to be trying to defer the big showdown over this crucial issue.

But Dingell is making it clear: when it comes to climate legislation, it’s his way or the highway. And if he persists, it may end up being a road to nowhere.

One another big issue, the draft contains "options" on how carbon permits should be issued. It is clear that Dingell and Boucher want to give many billions of dollars of permits away for free to the biggest polluters, such as Duke Energy.

Little wonder that Duke quickly announced support for the bill, which it presumably helped write:

1 comment:

L.L. Norton said...

So these Democrats are on the take, too!

Isn't there anyone willing to stand up and do what's right, rather than simply act as bought-and-paid for tools of special interests?