Senate panel advances global warming bill.
AP reports:
Democrats turned back repeated efforts by Republican senators to soften the economic impact of a global warming bill before advancing it out of a Senate committee on Wednesday.
It was the first bill calling for mandatory U.S. limits on so-called greenhouse gases to be taken up in Congress since global warming emerged as an environmental issue more than two decades ago. The bill was approved 11-8 by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. […]
The bill calls for the United States to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent by 2050 from electric power plants, manufacturing and transportation.
It would create a “cap-and-trade” system whereby companies would have pollution allowances that they could sell if they went below the emission limits, or buy if they found they could not meet the requirements.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
19 Responses to “Senate panel advances global warming bill.”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Another small step in the battle against the g.o.p. flat earthers.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:57 pmNot sure I have got my head wrapped around this yet,,
Would these be like stocks that rise and fall in value and be tradeable?
December 5th, 2007 at 8:58 pmToo little. Too late.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:06 pmMuch like the countries who signed on to Kyoto and are failing to meet Kyoto’s limits, the costs of this would just be passed along to you as companies failed to meet requirements.
“Japan, Italy and Spain face fines of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.”
So if this bill is passed into law, which it won’t be, but down the road then when companies have to pay money to buy credits, the prices will be passed along to you.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:09 pmI agree this is a drop in the bucket vs what is needed.
Maybe Muckdog thinks we we aren’t already paying for it now?
Just check out the oil industry profits. Heck, we’ve more than financed Cheney’s retirement with Haliburton profits from the Iraq occupation.
Vote for the presidential candidates who are aware of the corporate takeover and who talk about it. All the others are part of the problem.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:21 pmSo if this bill is passed into law, which it won’t be, but down the road then when companies have to pay money to buy credits, the prices will be passed along to you.
Comment by muckdog — December 5, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
and you. Boohoohoo. suckdog, you shoot yourself if you’re that eager to die.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:27 pmLet’s do the right thing; if companies fail to meet the requirements, jail the management and biggest stockholders. if that doesn’t work, execute a few. that would be cutting pollution.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:28 pmWell, the saltwater pond out in my back wet land acre is about 3 inches deep. It was barely moist when I moved in ten years back. There are clams flourishing in the area now. 8 feet, 9 inches and I will have to get a boat.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:30 pmthe prices will be passed along to you.
Comment by muckdog — December 5, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
You think that corporate welfare and what lobbyists do today is not passed onto you?
December 5th, 2007 at 9:30 pmmuckdog, since when do tighty-righties care about costs that will be “passed along down the road”?
I thought that’s how wingnuts like their government to be financed.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:31 pmNewflash Muckdog, your already 120k into debt and growing daily thanks to the Iraqi welfare state.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:33 pmImagine the consequences of doing nothing in economic terms as well as the cost in human lives and global stability. The costs are greater than can be calculated or predicted. Certainly significantly outweighing short term economic costs in taxes or the corporate bottom line.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:35 pmCertainly significantly outweighing short term economic costs in taxes or the corporate bottom line.
Comment by Snowball — December 5, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
yes, but suckdog and his neadertal buddies have a right to drive SUVs.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:39 pmThank God we have Fox News and the ever-vigilant Junk Science guys making sure they can prove consumption has no negative effects on the environment.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:39 pmOff Topic:
I can’t believe I never read Georgie’s Wiki Quote entry before:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
Pay especial attention to “grammatical errorsâ€, but, make sure you aren’t drinking. Enjoy!
December 5th, 2007 at 9:42 pmSo if this bill is passed into law, which it won’t be, but down the road then when companies have to pay money to buy credits, the prices will be passed along to you.
Comment by muckdog — December 5, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
There’s more to cost-benefit analysis than money.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:38 pmIf Congress had tried to pass this bill a year ago, I would have been against this bill, but now that the UAW has come to a good agreement with GM regarding the company’s long term liabilities, I am for this bill. I believe technology, and the business model in the US, now makes these improvements feasible.
The only part that I am not wild about is the ethanol portion. I have no problem whatsoever with “bio-waste” fuels - spent cooking oil, agriculture waste (discarded plants after harvest), etc., being converted into fuel - why pump fossil fuel from the ground while you put bio-waste back into the ground. I do have a problem with growing crops specifically for ethanol production (unless it is sugar cane, which gives you an 8 fold return on energy conversion). For starters, you’ve just raised the price of all food items that use corn significantly. You’ll also have to convert more natural land for agriculure, infringing on animal habitat, and adding more nitrates into the water.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am#16 All excellent points, but the expense issue is one we’ll have to live with because any alternative sources will cost us fiscally. Would that Congress could actually pass a bill that is completely good for the planet, not just some better than what we have now. The 40 percent fuel economy provision is excellent. (Of course as Progress Reports discusses again today, Bush is threatening to veto the bill. Since it is mandating alternative sources and reducing emissions by altering fuel economy standards. Why “of course?” He has to take care of Exxon-Mobile’s 18 to 20 Billion Dollar profit margin through the next century to fulfill his real goals in office.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:36 pm#17, RS Olive,
I don’t agree that food prices should be increased, because that hurts the poor in this country. I believe any changes to the energy / transportation industries should be (as much as possible) limited to those industries.
Nanosolar has shown that clean energy CAN be cheaper than burning fossil fuels, so hopefully, we can acheive these changes without steep cost increases.
I too like the big jump in fuel economy standards, because that actually levels the playing field for the US automakers. Both foreign and domestic makes have to completely retool, and incorporate completely new technologies, so we have essentially leap-frogged what other nations were already doing. This takes away any advantage foreign automakers had.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:49 pm