Climate change exists for Republicans too?

Congress has finally begun debate on climate change, starting in the Senate Energy Committee. I suppose this is historic, as this is a Republican led Senate acknowledging reality. The steps were minor, and are hampered by Republican committee leader Pete Domenici, who “has warned it would be "impossible" to pass legislation to cut heat-trapping gas emissions in 2006 because of election-year gridlock.” My take on that is, he won’t be able to receive as many utility company campaign contributions if he proceeds with legislation (I’m assuming he’s like the rest of Republicans, who receive 85% of the oil and gas industries' campaign contributions).

He did state that we can start legislation in 2007, which is somewhat promising. The plan to fight climate change is a mandatory cap on emissions. Those who release under that cap can sell their excess to those who fail to go under the cap. This system adds cost to “dirty” power like coal, and subsidizes cleaner energy, but all takes place in the private sector. Objections were raised as to who pays for the technology, that we already have, to be implemented. Another problem to be worked out is how high the caps will be, how expensive the credits will be, and when this will go into effect. The good part is, this system seems imminent. It is suggested that this could go into effect as early as 2010. Comically, the argument was made that mandatory caps are not necessary, because corporations are doing this themselves. That’s a joke; it’s obvious that government stimulus is the only way to do this effectively and quickly.

In other news, California is working on legislation to cut emissions by 25% by 2020, in a variety of sectors. This is similar to the Northeast, which has created the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which cuts power plant emissions gradually in future years.