There are some demonstrations planned for the climate meetings in Copenhagen at the end of the year by the activists in Europe because they feel that the discussed measures don’t go far enough. I agree with them about that, but the fact is that this sort of demonstrations have a tendency to turn into riots (and I am pretty sure that at least Black Bloc plan to make that happen), and that is not going to help. A flawed agreement is better than no agreement.

Another example of the perfect being the enemy of good.

“shall be set at the maximum level of energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and life-cycle cost effective, and on a path to achieving net-zero-energy buildings;”

I think this addresses your concern that this will add to the overall cost of structures. While it will raise the initial cost of construction, it will lower the operating cost of the structure by a discounted amount that is greater than the initial, and so the net cost of the change will be a reduction in overall costs of structures.

Ultimately, this constitutes a net improvement for society as a whole, because it makes it more difficult for construction companies to cheat customers by using hidden techniques for saving construction costs that increase operational costs. In this sense, it’s no different from conventional building codes that strive to protect consumers from hidden defects that save the construction company money but impose higher risks upon the consumers. Thus, it does not constitute a deviation from existing practice, but instead merely extends that practice into energy costs.

Interesting that one commenter, Erasmussimo, who at least is honest, says “I haven’t read the bill, and never will.” Maybe before endorsing such a major policy change, at least Members of Congress should read the bill. Or should they just blindly vote for something written in the back room, by 25 year old staffers, and industry lobbyists?

The media talks only about cap+trade, but there are dozens of other provisions in this bill. How many Congressmen know that there is a requirement for a new national building energy code, that will allow lawsuits against builders, and building owners, and homeowners,if their home or building does not meet stringent energy efficiency goals. These goals are not just a little more insulation, they will cost thousands for every house and hundreds of thousands for commercial buildings. Do even members of the committee know all the provisions in this huge bill? The answer is clearly “no”. And why rush it through committee with no opportunity for review?
The only reason to rush the bill through without reveiw, is that the authors, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey know that the public would never support these provisions, if they knew about them.
Do people really want to allow lawsuits against homeowners and building owners, if their homes and buildings aren’t “green” enough to satisfy environmentalists?
Why the rush?– Congress needs to look carefully at such major legislation. This kind of behind closed doors legislation is not the “change” we voted for.
Members of Congress who vote for this bill before reading and being aware of all its provisions, will have to answer to angry voters down the road.

But then Obama’s track record is the failure to learn from “the Lamp of experience” entirely – what else was I expecting…. Nothing.

Now giving away permits to pollute – that’s just lame lame lame; it reminds me of the EU’s useless ‘emissions trading scam’ all over again.

Well, like I say, the important thing is to get something started and I don’t care if it’s “2% below 2005 levels”. Years have been wasted with proposals + opposition because “it’s not good enough” on one hand and “it will harm industry and the economy” on the other and while time was being wasted on armchair arguments nothing useful was done. So to self-proclaimed greenies who whine about the target not being good enough, I say shut the hell up or you’re going to screw things up more and nothing will get done – again. I’m beginning to wonder if the ‘green’ groups are actually funded by large pro-status-quo corporations as they were in Ben Elton’s “This Other Eden”.

The Greenpeace objection to the climate bill is *exactly* what’s stopping us from making progress. If Greenpeace could make the case that a better bill was possible, I could respect their position, but basically they are saying, “We’d rather have no action on climate change than this action.” And so things get worse.

I don’t see how this is productive.