If there is one thing we can learn from the ongoing health care debate — besides just how many… If there is one thing we can learn from the ongoing health care debate — besides just how many Democrats it takes to kill the public option (five!) — it’s that moderate legislation is better than no legislation.

We must keep this in mind as we await the forthcoming debate on the recently unveiled Senate climate-change bill, which was released by co-sponsors Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., on Sept. 30.

The Boxer-Kerry bill aims to cut greenhouse gases by 20 percent (from 2005 levels) by 2020, as compared to the less aggressive House bill narrowly passed in June, which calls for a 17-percent emissions cut.

To accomplish this, the bill proposes a nationwide cap-and-trade system, which would place an overall emissions cap on power plants, industrial facilities and refineries, while allowing those polluters to purchase emission allowances should they not be able to meet their limit reductions in the allotted time. Because plants and facilities that surpass their reduction goals would be allowed to sell their surplus reductions, such a bill would reward innovation in developing new forms of alternative energy use and create new jobs in the areas of renewable energy and efficiency.

In the past, cap-and-trade legislation has been a cost-effective and successful strategy in limiting air pollution. Notable examples include the Acid Rain Program and the NOx Budget Trading Program, which, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, lowered nitrogen oxide levels by 62 percent compared to 2000 levels. The report said this reduction helped reduce smog levels by 10 to 14 percent.

The 821-page bill also offers incentives for natural gas and nuclear power use and promotion of tree planting and sustainable farming practices as alternative compliance options for the industry, according to The New York Times.

While certainly not as effective in cutting carbon emissions as solar or wind power, the switch to natural gas is a cheaper alternative — and one that conservatives would be more apt to agree to. Not to mention, it is much preferred over coal. A 1995 study by the Coalition for Gas-Based Environmental Solutions found that smog and greenhouse emissions could be reduced by 50 to 70 percent by switching to natural gas in electric generators and industrial installations.

Despite the success of past cap-and-trade programs, both liberals and conservatives are unhappy with an economy-wide cap-and-trade system. Some liberals view the bill as too lax on big businesses, preferring an emissions tax or simply an emissions cap with no trade.

“While the language the Senate unveiled today contains some improvements over the House bill, it fails to commit the U.S. to meaningful, science-based greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to protect us from runaway climate change,” Greenpeace USA’s climate director, Damon Moglen, told The New York Times. “This proposal meets neither the needs of science nor those of the international community, which is currently negotiating the landmark climate treaty.”

On the contrary, many conservatives view the bill as costly and too strict.

“The national energy tax was a terrible idea when it passed the House, and it is an even worse idea now. Middle-class families and small businesses struggling to make ends meet shouldn’t be punished with costly legislation that will increase electricity bills, raise gasoline prices and ship more American jobs overseas,” said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who referred to the House climate-change bill as “a pile of sh*t.”

Needless to say, when the legislative hearings on the bill begin Oct. 27, expect all the venom and stubbornness of the health care debate. Expect filibusters. Expect angry Tweets from Midwestern senators. Expect impassioned speeches about polar bears. Expect Kerry’s face to become even more wrinkled. And expect Old Leatherface Boehner, even from the depths of his now-irrelevant House lair, to rear his over-tanned head yet again.

For now, we find ourselves in that eerily calm period before a political typhoon. Many senators have not come out for or against the Boxer-Kerry bill quite yet. This is largely because of some smart planning on the part of Boxer and Kerry, who purposely omitted specific details as to how the emissions cuts would be met “leaving negotiations with Democrats and Republican moderates to fill in the blanks,” according to The New York Times.

It’s when those blanks begin to be filled that we must remember that compromise is key, especially if we hope to have legislation passed by the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.

E-mail Molly at [email protected].