Set sprinklers to water the lawn or garden only - not the street or sidewalk.
Use the microwave to cook small meals. (It uses less power than an oven.)
Purchase "Green Power" for your home's electricity. (Contact your power supplier to see where and if it is available.)
Scrape, rather than rinse, dishes before loading into the dishwasher; wash only full loads.
Cut back on air conditioning and heating use if you can.
Turn off appliances and lights when you leave the room.
WASHINGTON – From higher electric bills to more expensive gasoline, the possible economic cost of tackling global warming will take center stage in the Senate today.
KHOU-TV
Legislation requiring a reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power plants, refineries, factories and transportation is set for debate. The goal is to cut heat-trapping pollution by two-thirds by midcentury.
Depending on who's talking, the bill could either help save the planet or help bankrupt the country.
Texas could be one of the hardest-hit states, pro-business groups said.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who sponsored the bill with Sen. John Warner, R-Va., calls the bill the nation's next Manhattan Project, which created the atomic bomb, or its next race to the moon.
Proponents say the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act could reduce global warming by requiring power companies, manufacturers and others to dramatically cut their emissions and shift from fossil fuels to more expensive renewable energy sources by 2012.
But opponents, led by big-business groups, say the costs of the plan could send the economy into free-fall.
"We're bankrupting our economy for very little gain" if the legislation passes, said Keith McCoy, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, which strongly opposes the legislation.
Gas prices could hit $8 a gallon and home electricity bills could rise by 150 percent, the group predicts.
Texas, Florida and Georgia could be among the hardest-hit states because of their current energy sources and their size.
The economic hit to Texas could force companies to cut as many as 335,000 jobs to pay for added costs, according to the manufacturers' group. Only California would see more job losses, it predicts.
Supporters of the bill say that if the U.S. doesn't quickly do something to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the cost could be even worse.
"We still have the opportunity to avoid damages [from global warming], but our window of opportunity is running out," said Dan Lashof, global warming specialist at the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "What we need is a comprehensive national [strategy]."
In its own study, the NRDC predicts that real estate losses, higher energy and water costs, and other problems related to global warming could result in $3.8 trillion in economic losses by the end of the century if the climate legislation isn't passed.
"If you think it's expensive to do something about climate change, this tells you how expensive it will be to do nothing about climate change," said Tufts University economist Frank Ackerman, who conducted the NRDC study.
The debate on global warming is viewed as a watershed in climate-change politics. Yet both sides acknowledge that the prospects for passage are slim this election year.
Several GOP senators are promising a filibuster; the bill's supporters doubt they can find the 60 votes to overcome the delaying tactic.
The legislation is not as strong as some Democrats, including presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like. They want cuts in carbon-dioxide emissions of 80 percent by 2050.
Other lawmakers believe the bill goes too far, too fast. They fear it will outpace development of the technology needed to make the shift from fossil fuels, causing energy prices to soar.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the likely GOP presidential nominee, recently announced a less ambitious plan to cut greenhouse emissions 60 percent by 2050. He has not said whether he will support the Senate bill.
Big polluters would be required to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions – the "cap" part of the plan – by 4 percent below 2005 levels by 2012 and by 71 percent by 2050.
Some of the biggest polluters would be given carbon "credits" they could use to soften the blow of new carbon reduction requirements. They also would get billions of dollars in government assistance.
If they still couldn't meet their caps, companies could purchase more credits through a government auction, or buy and sell them – the "trade" part of the plan – through a new stock-market-like system regulated by the government.
The Associated Press, Los Angeles Times and Cox News Service contributed to this report.
What the climate bill would do:
• Cap carbon dioxide emissions at 4 percent below 2005's levels by 2012 and 71 percent by 2050.
• Provide assistance to businesses and consumers hit by the measure.
• Sell credits at auction to businesses that need more carbon dioxide emissions credits, raising as much as $1 trillion.
• Supporters say it is necessary to curb the effects of global warming. The impact to the economy by the end of the century without it could be $3.8 trillion.
•Opponents say it could result in an economic hit of nearly $670 billion, about 1 percent, by 2030.
Cox News Service
