By Art Wall

In what will go down as one of the messier compromises in U.S. political history, the House of Representatives passed the  American Clean Energy and Security Act, better known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, on Friday.

Designed to reduce emissions to 17 percent under 2005 levels by 2020, the legislation passed 219-212 – a tally far closer than the Obama Administration would have liked. The President, however, was roundly praising the bill’s passage on his weekly address on the radio and the Internet, saying that incentives to develop technologies such as wind, solar and geothermal power would reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and lead to a stronger economy.

“The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy,” he said.

The measure now goes to the Senate for consideration and Obama called on lawmakers in that chamber “to take this opportunity to come together and meet our obligations — to our constituents, to our children, to God’s creation, and to future generations” by reaching agreement with the House on a final version of the bill.

Supporters of the Waman-Markey Bill joined President Obama. saying the legislation would save 240 million barrels of oil by 2020 and create 1.7 million new jobs. Needless to say, most House Republicans, some democrats and several spokespeople for the oil and gas industry voiced their opposition.

For example, the Chief Executive officer of the Anardarko Petroleum Corp, Jim Hackett, commented that a “hugely flawed” U.S. legislative bill on climate change would damage the country’s economy through higher prices and job losses. He said would set up a market for trading pollution permits.

“I think the taxpayers will rue this legislation if it is passed,” Hackett said yesterday in a telephone interview with Reuters from Houston. “It’s a prescription for disaster for the economy.”

Hackett echoed many in the oil and gas industry when he said that a tax on carbon dioxide would be more straightforward than the bill’s so-called cap-and-trade plan, which seeks to “hide the ball” and targets production instead of consumption, according to the CEO. The climate bill would lead to higher energy prices, he said, and “green” jobs would be created at the cost of some conventional work.

“My view is that basically it’s a political expedient to say that they chalked up one for the environmentalists and somehow satisfied the American public that they’ve dealt with climate change, when in fact they’ve done nothing of the kind,” he told Reuters.