| Free Trial |
| Submit site feedback |
Late Friday, the House passed the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill, which President Obama said would "open the door to a clean energy economy." Congressional supporters say the historic measure would control U.S. global warming pollution, promote the use of green sources of energy and expand the nation's electric grid. However, critics contend that the legislation will increase energy costs across the nation and hurt the economy.
What are the best parts of the package? What changes should the Senate consider? What kind of impact is the bill likely to have on the American economy? Did House leaders give up too much to the agriculture and other business interests? Should the bill include tariffs on imports from countries that fail to adopt climate-change policies?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
19 responses: Margaret Kriz, Kevin Knobloch, Margo Thorning, Donna Harman, Dirk Forrister, Bill Kovacs, Chuck Gray, David Holt, Frances Beinecke, Jim Kerr, Thomas Gibson, Hal Quinn, Rodger Schlickeisen, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, Bob Bendick, Jack Gerard, Mark Muro, Rob Stavins
Last week, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved an expansive energy bill that has something for everyone to like -- or hate.
The bill would require at least 15 percent of the electricity sold in America to come from renewable sources. It would allow offshore drilling near Florida, and it includes subsidized loans and loan guarantees for a variety of technologies, including nuclear power. The package also would expand the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's power to pave the way for a national "smart grid" transmission system.
What are the most promising provisions in the legislation? What are the problem spots? Should the Senate consider the energy package on its own, or should the bill be bundled into a bigger climate change bill?
Which provisions should the House embrace as it votes on energy and climate change legislation?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: David Parker, Bill Johnson, Thomas Gibson, Linda Stuntz, Paul Sullivan, Larry Schweiger, Joseph T. Kelliher, Kevin Knobloch, Jack Gerard, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., Denise Bode, Anna Aurilio
Should America turn to nuclear power to cut greenhouse gases?
Senate Republicans want to build 100 new commercial nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. Over the last two years the industry has applied for licenses to build 30 new reactors, and Babcock & Wilcox Co. recently unveiled a new mini-nuke plant aimed at supplying power to small electricity users, such as municipal districts or individual industrial customers. But critics say nuclear power is too expensive and so risky that Wall Street won't finance the new plants. Opponents are critical of proposals for a federal loan guarantee program for low-carbon energy projects that could help finance the new nuclear plants.
Should we embrace nuclear power as a solution to climate change? What role should the federal government play in building new nuclear plants?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
13 responses: David Parker, Margaret Kriz, Margaret Kriz, Thomas Gibson, Joseph T. Kelliher, Thomas J. Pyle, Kevin Knobloch, David Holt, Chuck Gray, Paul Sullivan, Elizabeth Moler, Bill Johnson, Marvin Fertel
How can Washington regulate and reduce the transportation sector's oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions? What are the appropriate roles and responsibilities for the Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency? How should those roles be incorporated into the climate change legislation and surface transportation reauthorization that Congress is expected to tackle?
-- Margaret Kriz and Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
21 responses: Bill Graves, Bill Graves, Deron Lovaas, Ed Hamberger, Colin F. Peppard, John M. Krieger, Robert L. Crandall, James Corless, Paul Portney, Anthony E. Shorris, Steve Heminger, Kevin Knobloch, Steve Van Beek, Colin F. Peppard, Greg Cohen, Kateri Callahan, Paul Sullivan, Steve Van Beek, Greg Cohen, Steve Sandherr, Bob Dinneen
Will the nation benefit from a timeout for national forest development? Last week the Obama administration issued a one-year moratorium on road-building, logging and other development on more than 50 million acres of national forests, including the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. Under the plan, only Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will have authority to approve new projects on lands covered by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule does not apply to Idaho, where a roadless plan has already been authorized.
Is this a good way to handle forest management while the U.S. Forest Service develops a long-term policy for dealing with the inventoried roadless areas within the national forest and grasslands regions? Or is it inappropriate and entirely political? Is this decision a sign of how the Obama administration will handle future disputes over oil and gas drilling, logging and other commercial development on federal lands?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
4 responses: Bill Kovacs, Bill Meadows, Rodger Schlickeisen, Donna Harman
