Senate may have filibuster-proof margin for climate bill.
By on Jan 3rd, 2007 at 11:10 am
Senate may have filibuster-proof margin for climate bill.
Energy and Environment Daily reports, “Several prominent sources ready to track the upcoming legislative debate say Senate Democrats may be positioned to move a [climate change] bill faster than the House, perhaps even with the make-or-break 60 vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.” Industry attorney Mark Menezes said, “I think 60 is in play depending on how it’s written.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
and ripe for a Presidential veto…
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 amPissed off Pete,
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 amI may have a greenhouse to sell you, but that gas you’re emitting really stinks!
All of us progs are happy to hear you have plenty of money; you must have been working in one the Chimp’s buddy’s businesses, eh?
You remind me a lot of the divorced woman who had married a Republican. She said, ‘All he did for four years was sit on the side of the bed & tell me how good it was going to be’.
Your time is over.
Americans are sick & tired of you bungholes telling us how good it’s going to be.
Get it?
You’re done. Stick a fork in yourself & deal with it.
Oh, & pass the tomatoes.
If Bush vetoes such legislation, he will look like the fool that he is.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 amWhile Global warming is a serious problem, The feds believeing they can “change” the situation by new laws is even more of a problem. Regardless of any new law, people will still require energy from Coal and Oil. That won’t change because of a new law, it will only change when we have an alternative that is Cheaper, easier to use, and can be refilled in under 6 minutes like gas. Once the market finds that product, it won’t take a law to make people use it, it will simply happen because of the free market.
Forcing change with a law will always fail. But that is obvious to anyone who knows about how a free market works.
Taking away the handouts to the Oil industry on the other hand would be a very good idea. Government should not be in the business of giving money to private company’s unless they are buying something from them. Let the free market spend money on research and such. It is much more efficient anyways.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:17 pmThat won’t change because of a new law, it will only change when we have an alternative that is Cheaper, easier to use, and can be refilled in under 6 minutes like gas.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Take away the subsidies that the current coal, oil and nuclear energy corporations enjoy and the renewable energy sources are right at the same level. In fact nuclear is the most expensive energy there is. Just because you don’t see it on your monthly energy bill does not mean you are not paying for it through your taxes.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:31 pmRoger_Roger sez:
Izzat so?
I live in Michigan, where there is a 10 cent deposit on glass, plastic, and aluminum bottles. I invite you to compare our highways with those of a state that does not have a deposit law.
Wonder why that ‘free market’ didn’t kick in, and why Michigan was able to ‘force a change’ with a law. Hmmm…
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:32 pmThat won’t change because of a new law, it will only change when we have an alternative that is Cheaper, easier to use, and can be refilled in under 6 minutes like gas
Roger how long did it take for gas to become cheap and easy to use? Wasn’t there years of development? Stuff doesn’t just pop up, it has to be researched and developed. Which is a threat to the current energy establishment.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:49 pmI would not be surprised if some of the more moderate GOP Senators are not privately relieved at being able to work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner rather than being under the whip of the Southern Rednecks.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:30 pmForcing change with a law will always fail. But that is obvious to anyone who knows about how a free market works. — Comment by Roger_Roger.
Ain’t that the truth. Banning lead in gas hasn’t gone anywhere. Neither have automobile safety regulations like crash protection and air bags.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmTake away all Subsidies from the entire energy sector. I fully agree with this. I also release that “renewables” currently are not good enough for the following reasons:
1) They are currently more expensive then Gas. Take Ethanol. You take away all subsidies from it and you would have an extremely expensive product. Besides, using corn is a horrible idea as the more ethanol you produce the higher the price. Anything we eat and feed to cattle is a bad choice for a fuel. You are raising the prices on everything we use by doing it. The market would never have it. Lastly, Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC can always kill things like Ethanol. They simply up there production of Oil which drives the price down. They just bring the price down far enough that Ethanol can’t compete, effectivaly killing it. We need to wait at least another 30+ years because that is the estimated time that Demand will outstrip Supply.
2) There ease of use is worse then gas. Electric cars can’t be recharged from dead in 5-7 minutes while you can fill a new tank of gas in that time.
3) Usability: Hyred, Electric, or other reusable fuel need to have the same ability for horse power, pulling power, etc. Currently, these things are not possible. They need to find a fuel that will operate a V8 style truck just like Gas does.
Basically, the market hasn’t found a replacement. The market probably won’t since we are still swimming in Oil. Until demand starts to come close to Supply, we won’t change. You best bet in all honesty is to promote increase use of Oil products. This way you will kill the resource quicker and the market will get to reusables faster.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:48 pmRoger_Roger,
I agree with you on ethanol. It is a bad choise of an energy to move towards.
2) There ease of use is worse then gas. Electric cars can’t be recharged from dead in 5-7 minutes while you can fill a new tank of gas in that time.
So you advocate not to switch make the switch to all electric cars from an electric grid supplied by renewable and alternative resources because you can’t do it in 5-7 minutes. Do you think that the technology just might get better if there is a push to do so? American ingenuity. Remember that?
3) Usability: Hyred, Electric, or other reusable fuel need to have the same ability for horse power, pulling power, etc. Currently, these things are not possible. They need to find a fuel that will operate a V8 style truck just like Gas does.
You should brush up on the electric cars that have recently come out. The sports cars rival the gas powered ones and if you can make speed you can make torque.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:06 pm#12,
I am not against renewables. I simply understand that the market will not accept a new energy source that is harder to use. The technology would have to improve to make electric cars equal or better then gas BEFORE the market would switch. So, if someone figures that out, he becomes the new Bill Gates and we get rid of gas. The really big problem in the end is that we have to much Oil. Any new tech that comes out still can’t compete simply because OPEC can always increase supply to reduce the price of Oil and kill any competition from a potential new energy source. We need to wait another 30-40 years is my guess.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:17 pmThe Tesla has a limiter on the accelerator so people don’t accelerate to quickly. It has a range of about 200 miles. The vast majority of American drivers need to go far less than 100 miles in a day. Now, the Tesla is way too expensive, but it’s the shape of things to come. Hybrids typically get 2 to 3 times the gas milage of traditional cars. We import 52% of our oil from OPEC. You do the math, Roger. If the government encourages hybrids, we could do away with most of our oil importing.
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:45 pmFor those discussing fuels for transportation… algae based biodiesel production. Renewable, cleaner, 100% domestic, could replace all fossil based fuels, uses non-arable land, would only require 4% of acreage we have in production in arable land, uses waste water that is cleaned in the process, uses the existing fuel delivery infrastructure (i.e. the gas stations, tankers, etc.) already in place, and diesel engines are the oldest most reliable internal combustion technology we have (over 150 years old) and is also the bulk of our bulk goods ground transportation fleet.
We could replace our entire fuel needs with algae based biodiesel production in less than ten years.
Oh… and the algae production ponds are also a greenhouse gas sink as well, which reduces global warming.
New Zealand just brought online their first commercial algae based facility a month or so ago, South Africa just purchased orders for 90 algae bioreactor vessels based on the test model they purchased form MIT last year.
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:34 pmOh… and the algae by-product, the algae “husk” left over after oil extraction, is an organic fertilizer which can be used for food cropland fertilization in lieu of petrochemical derivative versions we use now. So we also end up with better fertilizers as the “waste” in the processing of algae based biodiesel production.
In short, i is cleaner, renewable, has the capacity, uses no new exotic technologies, uses our existing transportation and fueling infrastructure, would revitalize our rural communities and agribusiness, make our entire fuel consumption sustainable and domestic.
Google it if you want more background info… but when will our new Dems Congress move to help kick-start development of this?
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:41 pmActually bluedog, where we get our Oil isn’t truly a big concern as it is still a global market. We could use 0 OPEC Oil and OPEC would still hold much of the control as they still dictate the market price of Oil. Driving all Hybreds and reducing gas needs by 50% simply does one thing. It drives the price of Gas DOWN meaning the world will find more uses for Gas. In the end, Oil will be used at an expanded rate until Demand outstripes supply.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:58 am