Greenpeace is now opposing the climate change bill.  It’s not that they’re concerned for taxpayers—they want to make it more costly, but nonetheless…

Since the Waxman-Markey bill left the Energy and Commerce committee, yet another fleet of industry lobbysists has weakened the bill even more, and further widened the gap between what Waxman-Markey does and what science demands. As a result, Greenpeace opposes this bill in its current form. We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill unless substantial measures are taken to strengthen it. Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would enact strong, science-based legislation, we are now watching him put his full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science, elevates industry interests over national interest, and shows the significant limitations of what this Congress believes is possible.

This is an interesting development.  It is unlikely to change anyone’s vote, but it will strengthen some arguments against the legislation.  Republicans are right to worry about taxpayers, but the Greenpeace statement gives credibility to the claim that this will do nothing to help the environment.  Liberals can pat themselves on the back for passing a 1,500 page bill, but they’re hurting the economy with no upside in sight.

Climate change legislation could still present a few problems for Democrats.  Some Republicans believe this will have a huge impact on the 2010 vote; I remain skeptical. The Washington Post today gave mixed polling results on the issue.

Three-quarters of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, with substantial majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.

 

But fewer Americans — 52 percent — support a cap-and-trade approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions similar to the one the House may vote on as early as tomorrow. That is slightly less support than cap and trade enjoyed in a late July 2008 poll. Forty-two percent of those surveyed this month oppose such a program.

Helping to fight the bill, however, is none other than Warren Buffett, who came out against it yesterday. 

Republicans may have a chance to halt the legislation.  Eric Cantor has a new web video that outlines the Republican arguments.

And a Wall Street Journal editorial today offers the best analysis.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to “offset” their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

…

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

 

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Update: Here’s Buffett talking about cap and trade:

If anyone wants to halt the climate change bill that is nearing a vote tomorrow, the Washington Times has made it very easy for them.  In a time of domestic bailouts, nationalizing the car industry, and growing national debt, Congress is now going to handout money to foreigners to get them to not chop down trees.  This could make for some fun speeches on the House floor.

If a tree falls in Brazil, it will, in fact, be heard in the U.S. - at least if a little-noticed provision in the pending climate-change bill in Congress becomes law.

 

As part of the far-reaching climate bill, the House is set to vote Friday on a plan to pay companies billions of dollars not to chop down trees around the world, as a way to reduce global warming.

 

The provision, called “offsets,” has been attacked by both environmentalists and business groups as ineffective and poorly designed. Critics contend it would send scarce federal dollars overseas to plant trees when subsidies are needed at home, while the purported ecological benefits would be difficult to quantify.

Democrats are having a tough time reaching agreement with each other on proposed climate change legislation, Roll Call reports.  Regional disparities are at the root of the problem, and it is looking increasingly difficult for Congress to pass the bill.

Even as House Democrats started reaching out to Republicans to back a climate change bill, they faced a regional divide between some Midwest and Northwest Caucus members over the allocation of electricity credits.

…

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) has been passing out maps contending that most states would lose out under the cap-and-trade bill crafted by Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Other Democrats, including Rep. Tim Walz (Minn.), have been trying to negotiate changes to the bill to diminish the regional disparities.

Lawmakers from the Northwest believe their region deserves whatever benefits they gain.

“We were progressive enough to recognize this is the future of energy,” [Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)] said. He added that changing the formula in the bill, which grants half of the credits based on existing utility carbon emissions and half based on the amount of electricity sold, would undermine the incentive to invest in clean energy.

This hardheadedness on both sides is likely to yield deadlock.