Some questions and answers about the bill, a top legislative priority for President Barack Obama:

Q: What's the purpose of this legislation?

A:To reduce the gases linked to global warming and to force sources forpower to shift away from fossil fuels, which when burned, releaseheat-trapping gases, and toward cleaner sources of energy such as wind,solar and geothermal.

Q: How does the bill accomplish this?

A:By placing the first national limits on emissions of heat-trappinggases from major sources like power plants, refineries and factories.This limit effectively puts a price on the pollution, raising the costfor companies to continue to use fuels and electricity sources thatcontribute to global warming. This gives them an incentive to seekcleaner alternatives.

Q: Is this the "cap-and-trade" idea that has been in the news?

A:Yes. The first step in a cap-and-trade program sets a limit on theamount of gases that can be released into the atmosphere. That is thecap. Companies with facilities that are covered by the cap will thenreceive permits for their share of the pollution, an annual pollutionallowance. This bill initially would give the bulk of the permits awayfor free to help ease costs, but they still would have value becausethere would be a limited supply. Companies that do not get a big enoughallowance to cover their pollution would either have to find ways toreduce it, which can be expensive, or buy additional permits fromcompanies that have reduced pollution enough to have allowances leftover. That is the trade. Companies typically would pick the cheaperoption: reducing pollution or buying permits. They also have a thirdchoice: They can invest in pollution reductions made elsewhere, such asfarms that capture methane or plant trees. These are known as offsets.

You really ought to read about some of the ventures ENRON cooked up and popularized. And — it worked so well on that small, private scale, imagine it now at the world-wide governmental levels.

Q:So the idea is to try to reduce the overall level of pollution,regardless of whether, say, a particular factory reduces emissions?

A:That is true in the beginning. But as the cap gets lower and lower,reaching an 83 percent reduction by 2050, eventually all polluters willhave to reduce. It is merely a question of when. For instance, it willbe very tough for coal plants to reduce emissions at the outset of theprogram because the technology to capture and store carbon dioxide isnot yet commercially available. It probably is 10 to 20 years away. Sothey will be buying offsets and buying allowances from other entitiesthat will have an easier time.

Many people are too young to remember and care, but for those of you who remember freedom, I say: here's to us! We'll have some good times to discuss in later years, under our dim, fizzing lights in our under-air-conditioned homes while watching the government-sponsored internets on the government-approved television screens.

It'll be beautiful!

In the meanwhile, if you think there's still time to fight for economic liberty, call your representatives. You know This Administration will be calling them.

** UPDATE, NEXT MORNING **

The House has set the stage for a historic vote on hotly contestedlegislation to combat global warming and overhaul U.S. energy policy.

The House Rules Committee cleared the bill for floor action earlyFriday after working through most of the night. Debate on the measure,which Republicans largely oppose as too costly, has been set for three hours.

Kinda makes you wish the New York State Senate was in charge of this, doesn't it?

** UPDATE, AFTERNOON **

...the bill, which is around 1,500 pages long...

I'm guessing 3 hours of debate time scheduled, for a 1500-page bill, was probably overdoing it a bit. How nice to know that The Legislative Branch has the interests of the American people at heart — they are willing to carefully and deliberately make only the changes necessary to the system to improve it.

The House passed the climate change bill... by a vote of 219-212.

"The scientists are telling us there's an overwhelming consensus ...global warming is real and it's moving very rapidly," said House Energyand Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, the chief sponsor of thelegislation.

"Waxman" — a name that should send shudders down the spine of the average citizen. I suppose Mr. — er, Representative — Waxman is among those who cannot name one, single possible benefit that might occur as a result of either global warming or cooling.

Not one. Not one has been published. Who's going to convince me that this has been anywhere near a considered, intelligent analysis of the "problem" of climate change? Not one?

No one can think of any possible projected benefits?

So, on the other hand, our "representatives" pass yet another unread pile of poo into Federal Law without so much as a glance.

Under the ["cap and trade"]plan, the government would issue a declining number ofpollution permits to companies, which could sell those permits to eachother as needed.

"The federal government will be joining California in the effort tocombat global warming and the framework for doing it is one that isvery similar to the one that California has adopted," said that state'stop climate official, Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols.

California is recognized as having the most aggressive plan to fight global warming in the United States.

Yes, fellow citizens; your representatives — at least, half of them — think that California is setting the economic standard(s) for the rest of the nation.

Look upon us, and Be Very Afraid.

Or get yourselves some new representatives.

Heaven help me; I am relying now on the good sense of the Senate. O_o