Commentators Abound With Views on What Climate Bill Would Do

Commentators abound on the new Senate climate bill. For example, Derek Thompson, a staff editor at Atlantic Business, wrote: "The Senate bill is a lot weaker on renewable energy mandates and efficiency standards. In fact, it's worth reiterating that the Senate bill's renewable targets would do less (yes, less) than what we could expect to happen if no bill passed at all. If environmental groups want to strengthen the bill, this is, far and away, the most promising place to do so, especially since these items will make a big difference in the short term."

James M. Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute, wrote on NewsBlaze.com: "The Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act recycles the job-killing, energy-restricting provisions of prior global warming bills, with the only significant difference being the accompaniment of comical talking points designed to con the American public into believing that replacing efficient energy sources with inefficient ones will somehow create jobs and benefit the economy."

Noting that only 25 percent of carbon allowances would be sold under the new legislative outline, E. Thomas McClanahan, a Kansas City Star editorial columnist, wrote: "The rest? Given away, of course: to power distribution companies, refiners, developers of carbon-capture schemes and something called the National Industrial Innovation Institute."

Writing in the Baltimore Sun, Brad Heavner, state director of Environment Maryland, stated: "The bill as a whole needs improvement to remove the subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power."