The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
US climate change bill passes first hurdle
|
Greenies the world over have been, by turns, snorting and smiling into their morning fair-trade rooibos over a climate bill passed by the US House of Representatives on Friday. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which is designed to cut carbon emissions under a cap-and-trade system, marks the first major action by the US Congress to address climate change. If passed by the Senate (and the last one didn’t), the historic bill will aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% by 2050, create enviro-friendly jobs, boost reliance on renewable energy, and help wean the US economy off oil imports. Though it’s already earning President Barack Obama plenty of (his own) brownie points, the Waxman-Markey bill only just scraped through the Democratic-majority House of Representatives, with 219 yea-sayers against 212 nay-sayers. And, as with the House, so are the pundits split on whether the bill is A Good Thing – and what it might mean for the rest of us. Huffington Post’s H. Joseph Hebert is breathlessly anticipating an “energy revolution”:
US Senate Minority Leader John Boehner, on the other hand, is less thrilled:
Reuters’ Bennet Cohen is a little more measured in his take. He reckons the legislation could represent a giant step toward low-carbon power, but he’s putting the bill’s stated goal of reducing US dependence on oil in the ‘not very likely’ basket:
But some environmentalists, Greenpeace notably included, aren’t terribly convinced about the bill’s effectiveness on any level:
Double X’s Miriam Goldstein is just as disappointed about the kind of future this bill would promise:
And then there are those opting for pragmatism over poetry. Over on TreeHugger.com, Brian Merchant is adopting a beggars/choosers approach:
So if passed, would the Waxman-Markey bill mean anything for Australia? Strong US leadership could well force Australia to take a more active position at Copenhagen in December. The Australian’s Christian Kerr is reporting that the passage of Waxman-Markey through the US House of Reps has already shaken the Opposition into action:
|
|
|














One Comment
Brian Merchant has the right idea, and the locals (to Oz) that reject the bill Labor is proposing should take note. Better to have a bill that is incrementally better, than none at all?