One of the large hurdles of a comprehensive climate change bill passed in Congress is, as you may guess, the bill’s financial effects on industry and utility companies and the like. Because, in case you were unaware, you may elect your Senators and Representative, but you sure as hell ain’t paying them the big bucks. So, the Senate is trying to appease the big money people with its incarnation of the climate change bill, and as such have decided to grant companies billions of dollars worth of carbon emission credits, with the notion that most of the money will eventually get back to consumers and taxpayers. But as the New York Times reports, that’s not all.

The bill will also provide a cushion to energy-intensive manufacturing companies to ease the transition to a lower-carbon economy and to help them compete internationally, although the subsidies will disappear over time. The measure also sets a floor and ceiling on the price of permits to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

At the outset, this “cushion” will be on the shoulders of, that’s right, taxpayers. The Environmental Protection Agency has crunched some numbers, and thinks that the bill will ultimately cost $100 per household per year. However, with that given, “[n]either bill would add to the federal deficit and both measures could actually produce some revenue from the sale of emissions permits, the agency found.”

Senate Republicans are already bad-mouthing the bill as it goes before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for consideration, saying the EPA estimates are inaccurate, and want a more careful look at the bill. Regardless, a few questions for you, dear reader. Per the Times, the Senate bill is shooting to lower emissions to “20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050.” As to a domestic outlook, are those cuts worth $100 a year to you? Too much money? A great bargain?

As well, recall that come Copenhagen, the United States will absolutely not sign any international agreement that goes farther than the Congressionally-set standards. So, are these standards you think are good enough to try and form and international treaty out of? Would you like to see more? Less, so more countries will sign on? Feel free to share your thoughts.

photo credit: Will Palmer’s flickr photostream/Creative Commons