The U.S. is looking to adopt a carbon cap and trade system and has signaled a willingness to discuss binding emission targets. The new position will require the support of the White House and possibly could influence the outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

On February 27, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill in a 236-182 vote to remove $18 billion worth of tax breaks for oil companies and will use the money to fund the development of renewable energy.

Despite its passage in House, the bill is not guaranteed to become law. The U.S. Senate must still vote on the measures, and the Republican members in that chamber blocked similar proposals last year. As well, the White House already has threatened to veto the bill arguing that it unfairly targets the oil industry.

Opponents of the bill claim it would discourage domestic oil production and destabilize U.S. energy security and energy independence.

House Democrats defended the bill by claiming oil companies were seeing record profits with $100 per barrel oil and did not require government support. In 2007, United States oil companies earned over $40 billion in profits in addition to $18 billion in tax breaks.

Instead the $18 billion would be used to provide the development and incentives for the renewable energy market. The draft legislation extends tax credits for producing energy from wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and other renewable sources.

Under the bill, energy companies would no longer be able to exclude a certain portion of their oil and gas production income from U.S. taxes and would also have to pay U.S. taxes on some foreign income that also was taxed in the country where it was earned.

The legislation would also give consumers tax credits of up to $4,000 for buying plug-in hybrid vehicles; extend tax credits for installing certain energy-efficient appliances; and increase tax credits for gas stations that install pumps for dispensing alternative fuels.

"It will spur the production of clean renewable energy sources and provide business with the certainty necessary to make long-term plans to build viable and sustaining markets for these technologies," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Such sentiments are reflected in the UNEP 2008 Yearbook which cites tax breaks on fossil fuels and lack of financial incentives for renewable technologies as major barriers to an emerging global, 'green' economy. The recent UNEP publication stated that both national and international policy was required to remove fossil fuels from the center of the energy market and to make renewable energy ventures less risky to investors.

The United States, the only developed nation not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, has also stated that it is now ready to discuss binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The U.S. refused to ratify the international climate change agreement because it did not include major emitters of carbon dioxide from developing nations, particularly China and India.

According to a White House official, "binding international obligations" to reduce greenhouse gases could be announced as soon as July. Daniel Price, assistant to President George W. Bush for International Economic Affairs, said that any such undertaking would have to be made as part of a "global agreement" in which all major economies would make the same commitment.

As the world's current largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the absence of the United States in international climate change activities has not only created uncertainty and stunted growth of an international 'green' market, but it has made the efforts of Kyoto nations trivial.

Over concerns that the U.S. economy would suffer while a major emitter like China was left unchecked, the U.S. has been holding out until China joins the climate change fold. China is poised to surpass the United States as the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases in the next few years and the United States believes that any climate change efforts made by developing nations will be undone if China and India emissions are not capped.

"An effective framework requires the participation of all major economies, developed and developing alike," Price said. "Europe and the U.S. could turn out the lights today and come 2030, come 2050 we would not have addressed the problem of climate change."

But critics of the U.S. position say that trying to force China and India into accepting binding commitments of greenhouse gases is neither realistic nor fair.

"It isn’t going to happen," said Stephan Singer, a climate change expert at the World Wildlife Fund. "Why should they (China and India) do something when the United States has done nothing for the last eight years?"

The United States also has 13 different bills before the House of Representatives which propose carbon cap and trade programs. It is widely believed that these programs will be adopted by the current administration.

Regardless of the choices the United States does or does not make, by the end of 2008, a new president and a new administration will emerge, each with a far more progressive view on environmentally policy. Each of the remaining candidates in the U.S. leadership race for the 2008 presidential elections have vowed to establish at least a national cap and trade program within the United States.

It remains unlikely the U.S. will agree to binding emission caps without the addition of China and India and without all three participating to some degree; it is questionable if the efforts of the rest of the world would be significant enough to avert a climate change disaster.

A lot is at stake for climate change in 2008 as the U.S. has taken a more serious stance on climate change and adopts a new presidential regime.

China has continually taken the stance that it will not be involved in international climate change agreements unless the United States is involved. When it comes to deciding on the current bills proposed before the House of Representatives and the Senate, as the world superpower, the U.S. has to remember that one must lead before others can follow.

This article originally appeared at GLOBE-Net.