Dutch Ruppersberger votes for Waxman-Markey cap and trade "travesty"

Clive Crook of the Financial Times has some choice words for the bill: it "neutralizes itself", it would create a "vastly complicated apparatus", the "net effect ... will be small to none", and it constitutes a "minefield of unintended consequences".

Many green lobbyists don't like the bill either.

The official name of Waxman-Markey (HR 2454) is the American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009. I haven't looked at the details yet, but from 30,000 feet it doesn't look promising:

The cap-and-trade bill is a travesty. Its net effect on short- to medium-term carbon emissions will be small to none. This is by design: a law that really made a difference would make energy dearer, hurt consumers and force an economic restructuring that would be painful for many industries and their workers. Congress cannot contemplate those effects. So the Waxman-Markey bill, while going through the complex motions of creating a carbon abatement regime, takes care to neutralise itself.

It proposes safety valves that will ease the cap if it threatens to have a noticeable effect on energy prices. It relies heavily on offsets – theoretical carbon reductions bought from other countries or other industries – so that big US emitterswill not need to try so hard. It gives emission permits away, and tells utilities to rebate the windfall to consumers, so their electricity bills do not go up. It creates a vastly complicated apparatus, a playground for special interests and rent-seekers, a minefield of unintended consequences – and the bottom line for all that is business as usual.

This is one very large black mark for Dutch.

UPDATE: Looks like Dutch probably didn't even read the bill .