Offsets could account for up to 2 billion tons of total emission reductions each year under the entire cap; in 2012, that would mean that up to 15 percent of emissions cuts could be made with offsets, and by 2050 that figure would rise to 33 percent.

So scientists now predict that the temp uptick by the end of the century will be somewhere between 5 and 7 degrees globally. And supposed even with this bill we take that down a whole degree, it's still a civilization ender. We as a race as we have currently set ourselves up, can survive with hardship to 3 1/2 degree increase. Over that, we are done. Massive deaths, desertification of farmable lands, more intense storms and hurricanes, etc.

We had a good ride, did some amazing things, but in the end, using a spoon when a shovel is needed isn't going to fix a thing other than the egos of some politicians who honestly believe, at least in the media, that they are doing the right thing.

remember, the earth doesn't give a damn about us. It's been through worse and when it wants, it will shrug us off like a bad cold.

we have such misplaced egos as humans. We want to control it all, but in the end, it's that same control that becomes our own undoing.

Given coal's huge role in GHG emissions, vast inefficiencies and the potential for alternatives in the electricity sector, RES seems like the most potent near-term GHG-reducer in the Waxman-Markey bill.  Hope we can restore higher numbers for both efficiency AND renewables.      

As for cap/trade, proponents seem ready to abide whatever give-aways, water-downs and double dealing are needed to enact the (illusory) "assurance" of a "cap" that will "save us" by meeting "80% by 2050" (even though it's 80% of 2005 emissions, not 1990).

If caps were iron-clad guarantees, their logic might be sound.  Give anything away if it saves the planet, right?  But caps aren't really guarantees-- they're more like goals.  Especially 40 years from now and if we're relying on EPA to enforce them.  (I speak as a 14 year veteran of EPA enforcement.)

There are two ways to reduce emissions: direct regulations (e.g., RES, appliance standards, building codes, fuel efficiency standards, banning light bulbs, etc.) or by raising fossil fuel prices relative to other cleaner energy and energy conservation.  Caps (if enforced) are a way constrain supply and indirectly raise prices, inducing conservation, substitution and innovation.  

The more pronounced, predictable and widely-perceived the carbon price increase, the more emissions are reduced.  The more we hide the price, the less the system works.  Until we're willing to face the fact that we must raise carbon prices, direct regulation is a more honest and effective approach than "hide the price" (cap/trade) with give-aways and loopholes.  If you believe in the tooth fairy, "caps" are for you.  If you believe prices change behavior, it's a carbon tax.  And if you don't want to add to tax burdens, make the carbon tax revenue-neutral: use the revenue to cut out some other tax as the carbon tax goes up. 

(At first I assumed you meant that 15% of those permits designated for auction would be used to offset increased energy costs for low- and moderate-income households but the total percentage of permits but the other allocations for auctioned permit-revenue do not add up to anywhere near 100%.)

Help! I'm confused!

This legislation will have a material effect on the price of energy for individuals and companies alike.

The U.S. Energy Information Adminstration concludes that building account for 48 percent of carbon emissions. However, the good news is that buildings also deliver the greatest opportunity to reduce energy consumption, costs and carbon emissions.

 John Clark

http://www.tririga.com

1. The bill lets CO2 continue to rise until 2026. See, International Rivers report on this, posted on their website.

2. A cap is in no way a "permit" that prevents pollution. In fact, it let's polluters keep polluting, all they have to do is trade away their emissions, or buy offsets, mostly in a third world country, where EPA will never be able to track what they are doing.  In fact, the bill ALSO takes away EPA's ability to regulate GHG from smokestacks.  While the U.S. Supreme Court ordered EPA to regulate GHG from tailpipes of cars, this bill in an industry give away, takes away EPA's authority to regulate GHG from smokestacks, and lets the industry "cap and trade" and offset its pollution under a scheme that is unenforceable.

3. The derivatives market that this bill sets up for trading of the "carbon credits" is EXACTLY like the sub-prime mortgage derivative market. It was modeled after that, in the days when it sounded like a good idea. The carbon trading derivative market set up under this bill presents a real and serious threat to our economy.

4. You missed a serious problem with this bill: It defines "renewable energy" as burning our forests, trash, and landfill gas as renewable.

These are provisions the incinerator lobby worked very hard to get as "concessions": 101(a)(17) which defines “renewable electricity” as electricity generated from a “renewable energy resource or other qualifying energy resources.” In turn, “renewable energy resource” is defined under 101(a)(18) to include “renewable biomass” under 101(a)(18)(D). “Renewable biomass” under 101(a)(16) identifies nine categories of materials which may be burned to generate electricity. Four of these nine are trees or forestry materials, (F), (G), (H) and (I), and one includes construction and demolition debris (C). The definition of “other qualifying energy resources” in 101(a)(12)(D) includes “qualified waste to energy” which is in turn defined under 101(14)(a) to include “the combustion of municipal solid waste or construction, demolition, or disaster debris….” The legislative decision that the combustion (gasification) of these materials as a means to curb climate change is a serious flaw in this bill.

The impacts of allowing "wood" and trash to be burned as "renewable energy can be demonstrated by facts relating to biomass development in Massachusetts. Check out http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org    The industry's own numbers show that a 50 MW wood burning biomass plant, such as those proposed in Massachusetts, create 50% MORE CO2 per megawatt generated than the worst coal plant in New England. And, the current state RPS is already resulting in clear cuts of Massachusetts' forests. Check out http://www.maforests.org

Since the bill allows CO2 to keep rising until 2026, and subsidizes and incentives, through the $90 billion in "energy efficiency and renewable-energy technologies" (a quote from your article)- this bill will make climate change worst.

Would Grist please report on the "lowlights" of the bill and take a close look at some of the on the ground, and in the air, actual results of what will happen - and is already happening in Massachusetts as a result of a similar "cap and trade" and "renewable energy portfolio standard" like Waxman Markey, that we have here in Massachusetts.

Many thanks for Grist's efforts to sort this 946 page law out - we've been working at it, and it isn't easy!

M. Sheehan, Attorney at Law.

In short: biomass is a BIOMESS! But it's being hyped as "green" and to hell with what science says.....wait...is this the Bush era?