The legislative process wasn’t pretty, but the US House of Representatives voted 219-212 on 26 June to approve the most sweeping piece of energy and environmental legislation in history. (New York Times)

The predictable result is a bill that almost nobody likes. Greenpeace’s opposition illustrates a general sentiment on the left side of the political spectrum that the bill’s Democratic sponsors, Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, compromised too much. The US Chamber of Commerce says they compromised too little. And even the American Farm Bureau, whose members sought and won massive concessions in a deal that secured enough votes for passage, maintained its opposition (for a rather scathing take on this issue, see Steven Pearlstein’s column in the Washington Post).

What holds the current coalition together is a core group of seasoned legislators backed by pragmatic environmentalists and businesses who understand and are willing to play by the rules on Capitol Hill. And of course a president who supports the idea. In this respect, it’s hard to imagine a more concrete example of the political transformation wrought by the past two elections (whether this momentum will carry through a third election in 2010 is an open question – and one that increases pressure on Democrats to get the job done this year).

At its core, the bill would create a cap-and-trade system that would reduce covered greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. But the legislation contains a host of initiatives meant to boost things like energy efficiency and renewable power while controlling costs on industry and consumers. Nearly every one has its critics.

Aside from the latest concessions to the agricultural lobby, the biggest criticisms focus on international offets that allow companies to pay for projects intended to reduce emissions somewhere else. Groups like the Breakthrough Institute fear that power companies will simply ship money abroad rather than investing in clean energy at home.

Questions about the purpose and validity of offsets are legitimate, of course, but the legislation’s supporters say these same questions are likely to slow down the use of international offsets in the early years. On the other hand, if it turns out that the United States can, say, quickly, cheaply and credibly reduce deforestation in the Amazon while giving industry a little breathing room, is that such a bad thing?

Though significant, House passage represents the easiest of three hurdles that must be cleared. Attention will now turn to the Senate, where Democrats have promised to get bills out of committee by next month, allowing for a Senate vote in the fall. Lastly, House and Senate leaders need to come together and negotiate a compromise that can pass both chambers. And to be sure, environmental groups that held their tongues as Waxman and Markey were striking deals this spring might not be so acquiescent when it comes to the final bill.

In any other year, the notion of getting all of this done by December (think Copenhagen) would seem downright insane. But this is no ordinary year.