Lieberman-Warner moved from critical condition to the morgue 5

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   human power Posted 2:03 pm
   08 May 2008

   Slow death fasterHow pathetic. L-W wasn't even a respectable first step towards keeping us from the worst of the climate change we are causing, and our Congress finds it too extreme to deal with. I guess extinction is better than lower profits for the fascists.
   How will we ever get REAL reductions in the U.S. GHG emissions? Cap and trade would be fine if we only needed 10% reductions, but we need 80-90% reductions in less than two decades. I guess we could always put the poorest 60% in carbon-neutral prisons, although it might be a bit more effective and faired to put the largest emitters in said prisons.

   Permalink

2. 

   ce1907 Posted 2:06 pm
   08 May 2008

   no messy details providedonly a recap by Energy Committee's favorite mouthpiece
   Sen B trying to start a stampede
   Get real; this is a tough vote for Dems
   Ask yourself:  what is the game longterm?

   Permalink

3. 

   F James Handley Posted 9:12 pm
   08 May 2008

   Lieberman-Warner, RIP. VIVA CO2 fee w/ Dividend!The Cong. Budget Office concluded that a revenue- neutral CO2 fee would reduce GHG emissions up to FIVE times more than cap-and-trade (i.e, Lieberman-Warner).  
   British Columbia is showing the way --- using carbon fee revenue to reduce other taxes and distributing a $100 per person dividend each month.  A real, populist stimulus (unlike a phony "gas tax holiday").
   In an open letter to Congress this week, two EPA enforcement attorneys pointed out the failure and corruption of cap-and-trade and called for revenue-neutral carbon fees.  www.carbonfeees.org
   Senators' struggles to protect their states' industries with special exemptions is just the beginning of the "food fight" that cap-and-trade would engender.
   So Lieberman-Warner, RIP!
   Time to start discussing a carbon fee and dividend.  Win-win.  Climate protection, improved enconomic efficiency and populist appeal.
   See http://www.carbontax.org.  

   Permalink

4. 

   Miles Grant Posted 9:42 pm
   08 May 2008

   What's new here?It's going to be hard to get the Climate Security Act to 60 votes in the Senate. So what else is new? Sen. Boxer said the exact same thing in March.
   Why so excited to dump shovels of dirt on the Climate Security Act before the debate has even taken place? Is the ultimate goal climate action or proving yourself right that the bill was too weak and would never pass anyway?
   
   http://www.nwf.org

   Permalink

5. 

   davedenali Posted 3:02 am
   09 May 2008

   Why this year?It is too early to be pressing this kind of legislation.  Democrats are virtually certain to pick up Senate seats this fall, due to Republican retirements and the vulnerability of the 2002 GOP Senate class, which rode in on the heels of 9/11 fears.  Give us a Senate with fewer idiots like Inhofe, and a new President, and the odds on a good climate bill get a whole lot better.

   Permalink