The federal government has been criticized not taking action on global warming.

But The New York Times is reporting this morning (July 11) that Congress may be nearing a compromise on legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions.  Check it out at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11climate.html 

A bipartisan group of powerful senators, led by Jeff Bingaman (Democrat from New Mexico) and Arlen Specter (Republican from Pennsylvania), and backed by labor groups and electricial utility companies, are proposing a "cap and trade" program to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.  Industries would be allowed to pollute a certain amount, and if they exceeded that allowance they would have to pay a financial penalty by buying credits from companies that pollute less.  To win corporate and union support, the deal limits any potential fines -- and some environmentalists are criticizing the compromise because they say it's too weak.  The Bush administration is expected to oppose it, too, because of concerns about regulations that could burden businesses.

Readers, what do you think?  Is a watered-down, business-friendly program to limit greenhouse gases better than nothing at all?  Or is it a sellout?

Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, sent out a statement from its president Brent Blackwelder with this attack on the compromise.  "At a time when global warming is accelerating toward a point of no return, we need bold leadership from Congress. Unfortunately, the legislation offered by Senators Bingaman and Specter is a weak half measure.  A good sign of the legislation’s limits is the fact that it’s backed by some of our country’s biggest coal companies and polluters. This legislation is flawed in many ways.  For years to come, the bill would actually allow global warming emissions to increase—caps restricting emissions to 2006 levels would not appear until 2020.  The bill undermines these already weak caps by limiting the maximum price that polluters would pay for emissions permits.  Additionally, the bill’s ‘aspirational’ goal of a 60 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is far less than the cut of at least 80 percent that is needed.  Most important, this long-term goal is entirely voluntary, which practically guarantees it will not be met," Blackwelder wrote.

Another green group, Environmental Defense, distributed this critique: "Today's introduction of a bill sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman, and backed by some utility interests, demonstrates new momentum for mandatory limits on global warming pollution.  But despite improvements from previous drafts, Senator Bingaman’s bill still contains a fatal flaw that would seriously undermine climate protections. 

“The safety valve is a dangerous kill switch that could turn off the whole program,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense.   “There are much better ways of managing costs than giving up on the environmental goal altogether.”