Global warming bill still contains some smoke and mirrors

The European experience shows the critical weakness of this plan. In Europe, the distribution of free pollution credits to industries failed to establish a strong carbon market. In turn, the weak market in carbon credits failed to generate the money needed to fund new technology. And because there was a glut of free credits, polluters that went over the emissions limit could buy the necessary credits cheaply. So important states, such as Britain, continue to exceed the pollution limits.

Faced with disappointing results, Europe began auctioning off more of the credits in 2006. But the damage was done. The arrival of the recession caused the "carbon price" to plummet further. Critics point at companies that cut back their production 20% -- and therefore pollute 20% less because of the recession -- and now sell their unused pollution credits to prop up their bottom line. Money that was supposed to be generated from pollution credits to fund clean technology goes elsewhere.

The complex European trading scheme, started with free pollution credits, has not produced dramatic cuts in pollution or dramatic developments in technology or a robust market in carbon credits. The Financial Times of London was blunt: "Carbon markets leave much room for unverifiable manipulation. [Carbon] taxes are better, partly because they are less vulnerable to such improprieties."

Unfortunately, global warming and its solutions are complicated, but we have very little time for mistakes.

A recent scientific report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that a 2-degree Celsius warming of our atmosphere has a 90% chance of undoing the conditions on Earth that allowed and supported the development of human civilization.

Scientists from Oxford University, using this report, calculate that we can avoid this potentially catastrophic 2-degree warming if we limit our emissions between 2000 and 2050 to 1 trillion metric tons of carbon. They note that we've already burned 25% of that limit since 2000.

In response to criticism of the Waxman-Markey bill, the NRDC's Dan Lashof told National Public Radio's Warren Olney: "This is the best bill that can actually get through committee." Other supporters of the bill frequently cite Bismarck's line: "Politics is the art of the possible."

But which "possible" do they see? The 2007 corporate gauge of the best possible deal? Or the 2009 update of broad populist sentiment that favors coherent action over special interests?

Controlling pollution will require incentives. But does that mean giving away 85% of the credits for free, possibly setting up yet another questionable Wall Street "market"?

We need this bill to pass, but in a strengthened form: Put the emissions cap in line with the trillion-ton limit, cut back the freebies to fund innovation and green jobs and protect poor families from utility rate spikes.

In the face of clear scientific warnings, we have broad popular support for climate legislation. Don't let Congress waste this crisis on a historic miscalculation of what is possible. Talk to your representatives this week.