The first cut is the deepest — Hot Topic

The argument’s simple. You got rich by emitting this stuff at no cost. If you want us to cut emissions, you need to give us room to grow. And so you arrive at the only game in town: contraction and convergence. In its purest form, this means setting a per capita emissions level for some point in the future, and then allowing countries to converge on that figure. Those with low emissions will be able to grow towards the new average, while the developed world will have to make cuts — and for the richest, they will have to be steep cuts.

Q and A on the Climate Bill - washingtonpost.com

Would this bill stop climate change?

No. Even if it works exactly as planned -- delivering a 17 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared with 2005 levels -- it might not slow down the rate of climate change by very much.

You won't want to warm up to this - Washington Times

Perhaps the most destructive legislation in our country's history passed Friday in the House of Representatives -- the Waxman-Markey tax bill offered in the guise of addressing climate change.

This bill, named for Democrats Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, would have adverse and lingering consequences for every American. It would raise the cost of electricity for our homes, fuel for our cars and the energy that produces our manufacturing jobs, with little or no environmental benefit. Further, independent experts estimate it would cost Americans more than $2 trillion in a little more than eight years.

All Americans in the Midwest, South and Rocky Mountain regions would be most drastically affected because the climate-change legislation would destroy the nation's coal industry and the low-cost electricity it has provided to those regions for generations. Wealth would be transferred away from almost every state to the West Coast and New England.