Climate Change Bills of the 110th Congress
See a graph comparing climate change proposals from the World Resources Institute.
| America's Climate Security Act of 2007 - S.2191 | |
|---|---|
| Introduced | 10/16/2007 |
| Sponsors | Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), John Warner (R-VA), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Amy Klobushar (D-MN) |
| Main Provisions | |
| How does it work? | Emissions cap and trade system |
| First year of emissions cap | 2012 |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2020? | 19 percent below 2005 levels |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2050? | 63 percent below 2005 levels |
| What sources are covered? | Electric power, industrial, producers/importers of petroleum- or coal-based fuels, producers/importers of non-fuel chemicals |
| Can farmers participate? | Yes. Agricultural offsets are limited to 15 percent of allowances. (What does this mean?) |
| Other Provisions | |
|
|
| Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (CSIA) - S.280 | |
| Introduced | 1/12/2007 |
| Sponsors | Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Barack Obama (D-IL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Susan Collins (R-ME) |
| Main Provisions | |
| How does it work? | Emissions cap and trade system |
| First year of emissions cap | 2012 |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2020? | 15 percent |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2050? | 65 percent |
| What sources are covered? | Electric power, industrial, commercial, transportation petroleum |
| Can farmers participate? | Yes. Agricultural offsets are limited to 30 percent of allowances. (What does this mean?) |
| Other Provisions | |
|
|
| Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act – S.309 | |
| Introduced | 1/15/2007 |
| Sponsors | Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) |
| Main Provisions | |
| How does it work? | Performance standards with the option for an emissions cap and trade system |
| First year of emissions cap | 2010 |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2020? | 15 percent |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2050? | 83 percent |
| What sources are covered? | Electric generation, motor vehicles, fuel |
| Can farmers participate? | Not specified |
| Other Provisions | |
|
|
| The Electric Utility Cap and trade Act – S.317 | |
| Introduced | 1/17/2007 |
| Sponsors | Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Tom Carper (D-DE) |
| Main Provisions | |
| How does it work? | Emissions cap and trade system for electric utilities only |
| First year of emissions cap | 2011 |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2020? | 8 percent (electric utilities only) |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2050? | 41 percent (electric utilities only); Note: This bill is not structured like the others in that it pertains to electric utilities only. Total GHG emissions from all sources could increase by 62 percent by 2050 if other sectors are not phased in under the cap. |
| What sources are covered? | Electric utilities |
| Can farmers participate? | Yes |
| Other Provisions | |
|
|
| Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 – S.1766 | |
| Introduced | 7/11/2007 |
| Sponsors | Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Arlen Spector (R-PA) |
| Main Provisions | |
| How does it work? | Emissions cap and trade system |
| First year of emissions intensity cap | 2012 |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2020? | 0 percent (equal to 2006 levels) |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2050? | -15% by 2030 (the latest date for which targets are defined in the bill) |
| What sources are covered? | Coal facilities; petroleum refineries; natural gas processors; manufacturers and importers of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and N2O; non-fuel entities, such as aluminum smelters, adipic and nitric acid producers, and cement producers) |
| Can farmers participate? | Yes. Participation is limited to 5 percent of allowances. |
| Other Provisions | |
|
|
| Global Warming Reduction Act – S.485 | |
| Introduced | 2/1/2007 |
| Sponsors | Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) |
| Main Provisions | |
| How does it work? | Emissions cap and trade system and performance standards |
| First year of emissions cap | 2010 |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2020? | 15 percent |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2050? | 67 percent |
| What sources are covered? | Unspecified: "Sources and sectors with the greatest global warming pollutant emissions" to be determined by the administrator. |
| Can farmers participate? | Yes |
| Other Provisions | |
|
|
| Olver-Gilchrest – Climate Stewardship Act - H.R.620 | |
| Introduced | 1/15/2007 |
| Sponsors | Reps. John Olver (D-MA), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) |
| Main Provisions | |
| How does it work? | Emissions cap and trade system |
| First year of emissions cap | 2012 |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2020? | 15 percent |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2050? | 75 percent |
| What sources are covered? | Electric power, industrial, commercial, transportation petroleum |
| Can farmers participate? | Yes. Participation is limited to 15 percent of allowances. |
| Other Provisions | |
|
|
| Representative Waxman – Safe Climate Act - H.R.1590 | |
| Introduced | 3/20/2007 |
| Sponsors | Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) |
| Main Provisions | |
| How does it work? | Emissions cap and trade system |
| First year of emissions cap | 2010 |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2020? | 15 percent |
| How much GHG emissions would the bill cut by 2050? | 83 percent |
| What sources are covered? | Unspecified: "Sources and sectors with the largest emissions" to be determined by the administrator |
| Can farmers participate? | Not specified |
| Other Provisions | |
|
|
Farmer participation: Farming and agricultural businesses can help solve global warming through innovative practices such as storing carbon in soils and managing manure. (Good manure practices can cut emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane.) Some bills tap this agricultural potential by giving farmers the option to participate. Such provisions work like this: companies can buy agricultural "offsets" to satisfy a portion of their required emissions reductions. (The bills spell out how much of an industry's emissions cuts can come from offsets.) Some bills include similar provisions for forestry offsets.
Emissions intensity: Intensity-based emissions targets link greenhouse gas emissions to economic growth (usually gross domestic product, or GDP). GHG intensity actually measures energy efficiency, so declining GHG intensity indicates improving efficiency, or less energy consumed per unit of production. However, intensity-based targets cannot guarantee that emissions will go down. In fact, under such proposals, GHG emissions can increase. For example, from 1990 to 2004, even in the absence of climate policy, GHG intensity in the United States fell by nearly 20 percent. At the same time, total GHG emissions increased by 20 percent. The reason this happened is that economic output grew more quickly than emissions, even though both were growing.
Safety valve: Some parties concerned with the cost of climate policy believe the way to manage costs is to establish a safety valve, also called an "escape hatch" or "price cap." Under such policies, when the price of carbon reaches a pre-determined dollar value, emitters no longer have to rely on the market’s supply of allowances. Instead, the federal government simply sells additional allowances at the capped price – potentially in an unlimited quantity. This kind of escape hatch stifles innovation and can effectively allow more GHG into the atmosphere.
Posted: 30-Jan-2007; Updated: 30-Jan-2007
- Send to friend
- +
- Rate: Avg: 4.17, 12 votes

