What a crock this 'cap and trade' system is. Just buy into it to get a good conscience and never worry about the other side, whether the other side keeps their greenhouse gases at lower levels. China, right now has surpassed America in greenhouse gas production. Yeah folks let's just go out there and spend those dollars and only get a 30 cent return for each one spent. HIV/Aids prevention has a dollar gets you 40 dollars of prevention. Getting people a better diet has a 30 dollar benefit for each dollar spent. Yeah go build 10,000 windmills and find out they're not effecient enough and have to come down for bigger ones. Money for climante change just isn't money well spent.
I doubt you'll get ANYTHING through this Congress or the next. Think back to when Kyoto came to the senate for a vote. I seem to remember it went down 97 to 1. None of those climate changers in the senate seemed to like the Kyoto Accord very much. I doubt Rep Dingell will allow much of anything through his committee that doesn't share the cost throughout American business.
Posted by peter at October 9, 2007 12:17 PMI would suggest to anybody who is interested in learning more about the costs and benefits of addressing global warming that they check out the UK Treasury's Stern Review on the economics of climate change ( link to website). The IPCC Fourth Assesment working group II report is also informative in this regard (IPCC homepage).
Posted by Christina at October 9, 2007 01:18 PMPeter, your ignorance on the subject, even for a troll, is astounding.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 9, 2007 01:22 PMHe does mention his vote on Bush's energy bill: "When I arrived in the U.S. Senate, I wanted to do whatever I could to make real progress toward energy independence. I reached across the aisle to pass a law that will give more Americans the chance to fill up their cars with clean biofuels. I passed a law that will fuel the research needed to develop a car that will get 500 miles to the gallon. I even voted for an energy bill that was far from perfect because I was able to ensure that it contained some real investments in renewable sources of energy. And I've fought to eliminate the tax giveaways to oil companies that were slipped into that bill - oil companies that have spent half a billion dollars lobbying Congress in the last ten years while their profits have risen to record highs."
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/08/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_28.php
Here’s a video of the Illinois Environmental Leaders speaking out in support of Barack Obama: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1126028636/bctid1126051527
from the Environmentalists for Obama page: http://enviros.barackobama.com/page/content/enviroshome
He’s been strong on green issues for a long time:
http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/08/04/griscom-obama/
when will a leading Democratic candidate for president go beyond supporting cap and trade proposals and mouthing concerns about free trade agreements to calling for those developing nations to plow their trade surpluses into planet-saving environmental commitments to reduce emissions immediately?
When Vice President Al Gore (#44?) decides that he simply must run for President. At this point, I see no other choice. I hope his sense of responsibility and history is strong enough to convince him to run.
Posted by DeminNewJ at October 9, 2007 02:47 PMThanks for the links (again) Christina.
BTW, the NYT is live blogging the Rep Debates and it's pretty damn entertaining, that level of snark by the 'professionals' is sure to give a few grins.
Steve, Peter doesn't have enough sense to not post on subjects he knows very little about.
Posted by Judith at October 9, 2007 05:18 PMgood post steve, thanks for the new info, which is very alarming. but being someone trained in the natural sciences from way back when, i've been aware of and reading in this and other ecological issues for quite a while.
".....calling for those developing nations to plow their trade surpluses into planet-saving environmental commitments to reduce emissions immediately?"
the problem here is really the nature of the current world economic system which really is almost exclusively focused on profit. what these developed nations do, as far as i can see, is they put most of their trade surpluses back into the US buying real estate, stocks, companies and treasury bonds etc etc. that's how the system works and has worked. there really needs to be enough popularly motivated and citizen and scientific pressure so that these envirnmental issues rise to the top of domestic and international agendas. and once again, the biggest staller of them all is the US. surprise, right? the third world surpluses return to the US, keep this decrepit war economy running and basically fund the war in Iraq and the pentagon's budget.
so several issues are actually involved, as one needs to address how the entire world's resources are committed. as long as $1 trillion a year is spent on the world's war economies, there won't be much/enough available for health care, human welfare, basic infrastructure, food and environmental issues.
how one goes about changing the actual dynamic of the whole system, well that's a good question. none of the candidates measures up on these world-wide issues if you ask me.
Posted by michael72 at October 9, 2007 07:07 PMyo pants-pissing peter, I have an iceberg I want to sell to you, but you had better hurry, it's melting fast
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 10, 2007 10:23 AMI am writing this because there are a few very pertinent things that are being overlooked in these bills, and I feel should be amended into the global warming debate bills or new ones drawn up.
S.2191 - A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes.
S.280 - Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 } Cap-and-trade bill
S.309 - Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act } Cap-and-trade bill
2 Main Issues I have are:
1. Cost of emission reduction should not fall on consumers shoulders. All costs to reduce CO2 reduction should be undertaken by the Energy producer, after all, they are the ‘owner’ of that company/service, in which consumers pay for the service. It is not the consumers fault, nor do consumers have direct control over the service in which we depend on, or how that service derives the product we are purchasing. It should come out of their pockets, however fat they may be. Maybe they could do some fund-raising, since they are providing such a service that keeps humanity going.
2. These reductions in greenhouse gases, CO2 emissions, aerial waste, etc. should be employed NOW, not by 2050, when irreparable damage has already been done, or by 2012, but now. Energy companies wanting new construction should not be allowed to use old, hazardous mechanics in their plants. If they want to upgrade, they need to do it using new technology starting now. There are already ways they can reduce their emissions and they should not be allowed to build new constructions if they are not implementing reduced emissions. (refer to Duke Energy Cliffside Plant, North Carolina)
I think these bills have way overstepped the direction we should be going in and someone needs to wipe these clear out and start completely over.
We need a fresh starting point with some new bills in Congress.
–Shanna D.–
Posted by Shanna D. at October 31, 2007 03:38 PM