Landmark energy bill stalls in the Senate 14

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   randino Posted 4:32 am
   07 Dec 2007

   Well what do we do?Eat crap, or insist on what we want even if it means no bill this year. I think our wise ones on Grist should discuss this dilema for our edification.
   The sickening record of the GOP from the war to global warming, should be shoved down their throats, and up certain other orifices that I will not be so crude as to describe or name.
   Let's not get mad. Let's get even in '08. It is war, let's get on with it.
   Randy Cunningham

   Permalink

2. 

   trock Posted 4:57 am
   07 Dec 2007

   we need another electionAny bill that can be signed by this president is one that probably won't do any good anyway.  Lets try to do something, but maybe we shouldn't lock anything long term in like giveaway carbon credits in cap and trade.
   Don't like cap and trade, I'll take carbon taxes and tax trade any time.

   Permalink

3. 

   infp Posted 5:47 am
   07 Dec 2007

   Democratic sweep in 2008Let's make the Republicans pay for this in 2008.  

   Permalink

4. 

   givingjane Posted 8:10 am
   07 Dec 2007

   actionWouldn't this be a great time for people in those states with dissenting Republican Senators to organize?  Have pancake breakfasts in your community and ask participants to write letters demanding action!

   Permalink

5. 

   Pathos Posted 8:33 am
   07 Dec 2007

   All that...And more than anything... Remember that every dollar you donate could be a vote. Give money to green candidates in '08. In fact, give till it hurts.

   Permalink

6. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 10:20 am
   07 Dec 2007

   Compromise......Part of the reason they insisted on the increase in taxes on oil and gas was to help pay for the actual bill (since they now have pay-as-you-go policy to try and slow the national debt).  If the chuncked out the tax increases, found another way to pay for it, but kept everythin' else, I don't think it'd be that big of a sacrifice (especially since the bill would reduce consumption of oil and gas anyway).  if they did away with much more than that (especially if they did away with the 15% renewable energy for utilities), then the bill would basically amount to very little.

   Permalink

7. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 10:29 am
   07 Dec 2007

   ArgThe bill is a lot weaker without that 15% Renewable Electricity Standard in there...

   Permalink

8. 

   givingjane Posted 10:40 am
   07 Dec 2007

   agree with RandyNo bill is better than this load of old tosh (referring to what Republican Senators want to turn it into).  I think I'd even put time into encouraging my rep to vote against a watered-down bill.  

   Permalink

9. 

   mwildfire Posted 1:09 am
   08 Dec 2007

   no compromiseGotta disagree with Tasermons partner. S/he says they put "increased taxes" in to help pay for the bill, and it would be worth sacrificing that to get a bill through. Seems to me that the "tax increase" is really a redirection of tax BREAKS for those struggling, marginal little companies like ExxonMobileTexacoChevronShell, to pay for subsidies for the new, clean energy sources, the ones we desperately need to ramp up production of as fast as we can (wind, solar,tidal--and counterproductively, ethanol). No, we should NOT compromise on the most important provision in the bill--we have to accept the likelihood that even if the bill gets through the Senate, if it isn't a huge giveaway to the oil, coal and nuclear corporations, Bush will veto it. He doesn't need a good reason and he doesn't have to worry about reelection. But many of those Republican senators do. Let them go on record filbustering and blustering to preserve record profits for huge oil companies while their constituents are crying about gas prices. We may have to wait another year or two to get an actual bill passed--but let's get a GOOD bill, one that would actually solve problems, through Congress even if Bush vetoes it, rather than another giveaway that will actually worsen global warming, passed now. The world's governments are beginning negotiations in Bali for climate accords that are the only hope of rescuing this planet short of something that kills off most humans (plague or war). Everyone is looking to the US, to see if we're ready to finally come aboard and work constructively with the rest of the world to cut emissions. They understand that we're saddled with the Bush creature for another year. It's more important to pass a decent bill that he vetoes, than a POS that goes through and shows that the US is still holding out against reality.

   Permalink

10. 

    Tasermons Partner Posted 1:27 am
    08 Dec 2007

    I'm just a little worried......that we're relying too much on the chance to pass a stronger bill in the next elections.  I hope that's the case, but it might not be.  We don't know for certain that we'll get a president (republican or democrat) who'll support such a measure, or that we'll retain enough eco-minded members of the house and senate to pass such a measure.
    Relying on future election results which may or may not become true as part of an overall strategy could turn out to be an extremely risky move fom my personal perspective.

    Permalink

11. 

    Karen Lee Orr Posted 9:55 pm
    08 Dec 2007

    Help STOP Dirty Energy in the Energy BillThis action alert is from Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network.
    
    --------------------
    You may have seen one-sided action alerts about how a great clean energy bill got passed in the U.S. House on 12/6 and was rejected Friday (12/7) by the Senate.  As with ANY legislative alerts that urge you to support something, we encourage you to look into some of the details.  At a minimum, please look at the table of contents of the bill and see what it is you'd be supporting.
    If you look over the 1,038 page bill, as I've been doing for the past day, you'll notice many problematic policies in the bill.
    While we've had some great victories so far, in keeping $50 billion/year in nuclear power subsidies out of the bill and in placing some limits on the bill's support for agrofuels and trash incineration, there is still a lot of work to do to make this a bill clean enough to deserve unqualified support.
    The bill still supports ethanol, waste-to-ethanol, coal, trash incineration, biomass (including poultry waste) incineration, landfills and nuclear power.  Visit http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/ for a link to the bill and details on how the bill supports these dirty energy sources.
    The vote in the Senate will be close.  There are efforts to overcome the Senators who are opposing the bill for the wrong reason.  These efforts will weaken the bill be pulling out some of the stronger renewable (but not necessarily "clean") energy policies in the bill (like the 13.8% by 2020 Renewable Electricity Standard).
    This is a great opportunity to push back on them and work to change the debate.  If we can get even 1-2 senators to vote against the bill for the right reasons, we can have a chance of getting a cleaner bill passed.  It's only a matter of time until the big enviro groups -- with all of their alerts on the issue -- get the extra votes needed to PASS the bill by persuading Senators to support the good aspects of the bill.  Given the grave consequences of the dirty aspects of the bill, it's worth however many months it might take to send this back to the drawing board in order to clean it up before passing it.
    PLEASE look over our http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/ page.  Read over it.  Feel free to check the bill itself (or call me) to verify things.  Then, call your Senator and urge them to remove the Renewable Fuels Mandate, the language supporting the coal and waste industries as well as the other dirty energy issues outlined there.
    Thank you,
    Mike Ewall
    
    Energy Justice Network
    
    215-743-4884
    
    (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
    
    //
    var l=new Array();
    
    var output = '';
    
    l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[26]='\"';l[27]=' 103';l[28]=' 114';l[29]=' 111';l[30]=' 46';l[31]=' 97';l[32]=' 112';l[33]=' 110';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 105';l[36]=' 116';l[37]=' 99';l[38]=' 97';l[39]=' 64';l[40]=' 116';l[41]=' 115';l[42]=' 121';l[43]=' 108';l[44]=' 97';l[45]=' 116';l[46]=' 97';l[47]=' 99';l[48]=':';l[49]='o';l[50]='t';l[51]='l';l[52]='i';l[53]='a';l[54]='m';l[55]='\"';l[56]='=';l[57]='f';l[58]='e';l[59]='r';l[60]='h';l[61]='a ';l[62]='

    Permalink

12. 

    randino Posted 9:58 am
    09 Dec 2007

    The two faces of realismThose who have been praising the efforts of the house and what they have produced - now at the tender mercies of the Dark Side in the Senate - do have a point against the harumpers like yours truly. It does represent progress. It even represents progress that is remarkable compared to the miserable record of the US Congress in the past. So we should be realistic about what can be obtained under the current status quo. Frankly I chalk this up to a trial run, that is probably not going anywhere this session.
    But we should be careful about not surrendering to reality, in the name of being realistic or its dreaded soul killing twin - being practical. We should paricularly be careful of getting sucked into the "deal at any cost" dynamic prevalent within the Beltway.
    We have to learn an art that has had to be mastered by every significant social movement in history. Namely, how to manage multiple personalities within one movement body. How to be just a little nuts. How to be pragmatic and utopian. How to wear a tie and coat and talk nice to the Devil, and then turn right around and be outrageous in the streets. How to say "thank you, kindly" to the legislators who have just moved a none too exciting piece of legislation down the field and given you some victories, but then turn around and say "We want more." How to be active without being predictable so your foes can get a bead on you. How to use the tough cop/nice cop routine.
    In short, how to walk on both legs and be an effective movement that can go out there and get what we and the earth need for a viable future.
    Randy Cunningham

    Permalink

13. 

    rraimo Posted 10:58 pm
    09 Dec 2007

    Scratching my head...Senator Warner from Virginia voted Nay on the Energy Bill, yet he co-sponsored and supported the Climate Security Act legislation just the day before.  I've already written to his office asking WTF?  Any ideas?

    Permalink

14. 

    Tasermons Partner Posted 10:40 am
    10 Dec 2007

    Somethin' was different...Senator Warner from Virginia voted Nay on the Energy Bill, yet he co-sponsored and supported the Climate Security Act legislation just the day before.  I've already written to his office asking WTF?  Any ideas?
    There was probably some part of the energy bill he didn't agree with.  look at how he voted on previous energy legislation and then maybe you'll get some ideas 'bout which provisions in particular he opposed, and why.
    
    

    Permalink