Senator Eliot Shapleigh - El Paso, Texas

Congress is scheduled to begin debate this week on what could become the most sweeping — and most costly — environmental legislation the United States has ever known.

Depending on who's talking, it could either help save the planet or help bankrupt the country.

Proponents say the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act could reduce global warming by requiring power companies, manufacturers and other big polluters to dramatically cut their emissions and shift from fossil fuels to more expensive renewable energy sources beginning in 2012.

But opponents, led by big business groups, say the costs associated with the plan could send the already fragile 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 proposed legislation.

McCoy's group predicts the country's economic output could fall by nearly $670 billion — or about 1 percent — by 2030 as power plants, refineries, manufacturers and other businesses are forced to deal with new requirements and use cleaner but more expensive renewable energy sources like solar or wind.

Gas prices could hit $8 a gallon and home electricity bills could rise by 150 percent, the group predicts. As many as 4 million jobs could disappear by 2030, it claims.

Texas, Florida and Georgia could be among the hardest-hit states because of their current energy sources, usage 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.

Florida could be No. 3 in job losses with up to 294,000 in cuts, while Georgia might lose as many as 155,000 jobs, it predicts. Job losses in Ohio might reach 143,000.

Proponents say the economic consequences aren't nearly that dire. If the United States doesn't quickly do something to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the economic impact could be even worse, they claim.

"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 environmental group National Resources Defense Council. "What we need is a comprehensive national (strategy)."

In its own study, the NRDC predicts real estate losses, higher energy and water costs and other global warming-related problems could result in $3.8 trillion in economic losses by the end of the century if the Lieberman-Warner 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 Lieberman-Warner legislation still has a long way to go.

The House has yet to introduce a companion bill. And given current economic problems, it faces a tough fight in the Senate.

"As American families and American workers are faced with an economic downturn, the slumping housing market, and rising gas prices, they are unlikely to tolerate a 'de-stimulus' climate bill ... (that) will further exacerbate economic pain," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., an opponent, said in a statement.

Nonetheless, the mere progress of the bill so far marks a major shift in U.S. climate change policy that could help reverse America's image as a laggard to a leader in the fight against global warming.

In the past, while most of the rest of the world was taking clear steps to address climate change, the Bush administration and others denied that global warming was a problem — or even occurring.

The United States is the world's biggest polluter by some measures. It's also the only major country not to ratify the United Nations' 1997 Kyoto Protocol that sets limits for greenhouse gas emissions.

President Bush, echoing the concerns of many business leaders, has said such limits would hurt the economy too badly.

Although he recently acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced, Bush still opposes the Lieberman- Warner legislation.

But that may be a moot point.

All of the major presidential candidates say they support a carbon "cap-and-trade" system like the one laid out in Lieberman-Warner. And one of them will likely be in office before the bill gets through Congress.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., who sponsored the bill with Sen. John Warner, R-Va., calls the proposed legislation the nation's next "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Project."

In cost, complexity and potential, it could exceed those national initiatives.

Under the bill, the nation's big polluters would be required to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions — the "cap" part of the plan — by 4 percent below 2005 levels beginning in 2012 and by 71 percent by the year 2050.

To do so, businesses could switch from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas to more environmentally friendly — but also more expensive — sources like solar, wind or biomass.

Some of the biggest polluters, including manufacturers, power plants and refineries, 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 can'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 bill's authors estimate the auctioning of credits could raise more than $1 trillion in government revenues.

That money in turn would be used to help fund energy technology research and conservation programs and train renewable energy workers. It also would be used to help provide tax incentives and other government assistance for affected manufacturers and utilities and refineries.

Under the bill, the government would also set aside nearly $800 billion in tax credits for low income consumers who could be most affected by rising energy prices.

The Lieberman-Warner proposal is modeled after a generally successful cap-and-trade system implemented in the 1990s designed to cut U.S. utilities' sulfur dioxide emissions that cause acid rain. Other countries have implemented similar cap-and-trade systems as they try to meet the emission caps outlined in the Kyoto Protocol.

Not all businesses oppose the proposed legislation.

Several major companies and business groups have already endorsed it. And some of the most impacted companies could even make money because of it.

At its recent annual meeting, Juno Beach, Fla.-based utility FPL Group indicated the proposed legislation could actually boost earnings.

That's because FPL already is a major producer of renewable energy from solar and wind operations. Demand for FPL's "clean" energy would likely rise — as would its cost — under the Lieberman-Warner plans, and clean energy production would be exempt from the cap-and-trade regulations.

Conversely, Atlanta-based energy company Southern Co., one of the biggest operators of pollution-producing coal-fired power plants, is a major opponent to the bill.

That's because Southern would probably have to buy substantial carbon credits under the legislation. It also could be forced to eventually replace many of its coal-fired power plants with renewable energy operations.

As a result, Southern's operating costs would increase — and so would customers' monthly bills, said spokeswoman Valerie Holpp.

Recent analysis by the federal Energy Information Administration estimates consumers' average annual power bills would rise by $30 to $325 by 2020 under the legislation. Some utilities predict they would rise much more.

Along with costs, critics say the Lieberman-Warner plan tries to do too much too quickly.

The technology necessary to replace fossil fuels with affordable renewable energy in mass quantities isn't even available yet, they point out. Setting up a massive new bureaucracy to manage such a program would be expensive and could take decades, they add.

"The fact is, when you're making the biggest economic decision the world will probably ever make, you need to make sure it's right," said Bill Kovacs, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In advertisements and in on its Web site, Kovacs' business advocacy group predicts we'll all be sleeping in earmuffs and overcoats, cooking over candles and walking or jogging to work because energy costs will rise so much.

"What (bill proponents) are saying is, 'Trust us. We're going to do this and then somebody somewhere is going to find the technology to really solve this problem,'" Kovacs said.

"You can't play with the economy like that," he said.