August 5, 2009 For the first 25 years the Waxman bill spends more on foreign than on domestic emission reductions. But on the domestic side, the main effect is on electricity. The graph shows the four main factors reducing electricity emissions. The next one, not shown, is geothermal, which is three times smaller than wind. Solar is 100 times smaller.

August 5, 2009 In EIA's Aug. 4 report on the Waxman bill, the Dept. of Energy finds that the bill's cap induces more than enough renewable electricity to meet the RES. "The share of renewable generation far exceeds that required to comply with the combined efficiency and renewable electricity standard in all of the ACESA cases." (p.23-24)

August ??, 2009 If it were a cap we could name the cap and be sure of it. Well they do name it, but it's just not true. The Waxman bill claims flat out that it will cap the emissions of the covered emitters at 1035 million metric tons of GHGs in 2050.

But the EPA estimated this with two models that came to almost the same answer. The average was 4300 MMTs of GHGs, over four times greater. Partly, the extra emissions were saved earlier and credits are "banked". But mostly, the the emitters will be buying foreign (and some domestic) offsets. These allow them to emit above the cap. Waxman allows them to use 2000 MMTs of offsets in any year.

Suppose the offsets actually work, and foreign emissions are reduced. Does that mean some combination of the U.S. and the rest of the world is being capped? Not at all. The rest of the world will grow at who-knows-what rate, and will adopt or not adopt certain climate programs of their own. So there is just no predicting what total emissions will be. But certainly the "capped" U.S. emitters are not capped anywhere near where the bill claims they are.

China and India have nixed caps. Without these caps, Kyoto fails. What can be done?

Carbonomics explains "wrecking" the economy, "peak oil," caps, carbon taxes, and Kyoto.