Today is Earth Day. Hopefully this is a holiday that increases awareness about environmental issues, though I, for one, am not convinced.

Unlike its humble beginnings, recent Earth Days have focused on global warming. It may or may not be coincidental that it is around this time that the famous “tri-partisan” climate change legislation proposed by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Lindsey Graham, a Democrat, Independent and Republican, respectively, is being revealed.

Climate change legislation will be an important and major step towards lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The current bill in the Senate – a similar climate change bill already passed last summer – will be unveiled on April 26, but many key points are already known.

The bill will incorporate some of the same aspects of the Waxman-Markey legislation that passed last June, but overall the bill will be substantially different.

The Kerry-Leiberman-Graham bill is so flawed it may be better for the climate not to pass it at all.

The proposed bill will deviate from the cap-and-trade strategy outlined in the House bill, where emitters of greenhouse gases basically trade and buy the rights to pollute, and the total amount polluted is set at a specific level.

The new bill will instead use a gradual phasing in of emission reductions, done sector by sector. This is potentially even more complicated than a cap-and-trade system, with even more loopholes and chances for big business to interfere.

The most important reason the overhaul bill will have a negative impact on the environment is that it strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its right to regulate carbon dioxide – a power they were granted only recently. This will further ensure that the stringent reductions that are needed will never come about.

Additionally, the bill would get rid of regional cap-and-trade systems, like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which incorporates ten northeastern states (Massachusetts included) that aim to reduce their carbon emissions by 10 percent by 2018. Why should we undo such progress?

In fact, we should learn some lessons from the RGGI. It is often omitted that the U.S. already has a cap-and-trade system in place, which has raised $582 million to date for renewable energy programs and efficiency initiatives for those states. The cash is definitely a plus.

Another problem, as is the problem with almost any climate change bill introduced in Congress, is that the emission reductions are all too modest. The Senate bill, if passed, would only result in a 3 percent reduction of emissions by 2020, using 1990 as a baseline, even though scientists say that a 25 percent reduction in the same time period is needed.

Subsidies in the bill are skewed heavily in the wrong direction. There are billions of dollars for “clean” coal and increased offshore drilling. This is, of course, to win Republican support, as well as to keep the coal and oil industry lobbyists happy. There are also major subsidies for nuclear power companies, but if this means less money for coal, then this is a good thing.

Such subsidies need to be seriously addressed when the bill heads to the floor of the Senate. Despite a need for renewable, clean energy to be implemented widely to mitigate global warming, subsidies are still very heavily focused on fossil fuels. From 2002 to 2008, subsidies for fossil fuels totaled $72 billion, while clean energy sources like solar, wind and non-corn-based biofuels only received $12.2 billion. Historically, any new energy source needs subsidies to be cost effective, and our current need is for renewable energy sources. This can dramatically lower carbon emissions.

Congress needs to address climate change, but many changes to the current Senate bill need to be employed before it will be advantageous to pass it. The EPA must still be allowed to regulate carbon dioxide in case legislation does not result in the necessary cuts. Regional agreements and states’ own initiatives need to remain in place, and the reductions which will supposedly result from the bill must be higher. Last, subsidies must be shifted from the fossil fuels of the 20th century to the renewable energy sources of the 21st century.

The European Union has already had a cap-and-trade system in place since 2005. Let’s not let America fall behind in yet another area. Though we must act quickly on global warming, such important legislation should not be rushed. I am for climate change legislation, but I am not for the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill.

Tim Cheplick is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].