claudsam’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Tyler -- I don't know where you think I've grossly overestimated the positive impact of the bill. I started out by acknowledging that this is not a perfect bill, but that the important thing is to get a good bill passed and to begin to tackle this crisis.

  My point was to address your view that the EPA should be allowed to regulate carbon. I agree with that in theory, but in practice that's certainly not a silver bullet solution and I would much rather have a law than a series of regulations that can be undone by subsequent administrations over time. Plus, the EPA administrator Lisa Jackson strongly supports this bill as does President Obama. So, there is preference from this administration and EPA to pass the bill.

  You and I disagree on whether this bill is on balance a positive or negative bill. I think getting a carbon market up and running, setting legal pollution reduction goals, creating the legal framework for dealing with this problem is very important. And, I might add, that if the bill were so environmentally flawed, why are the oil and coal and utility companies nearly all lined up against it? On my side, I have Waxman, Markey, Pelosi, Obama. On the other side, you have ExxonMobil, Southern Company, Rush Limbaugh, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Legislation truly does make strange bedfellows.

  On Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September posted 4 months, 2 weeks ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Tyler -- I understand your concern about limiting action by EPA under Clean Air Act. As I understand it, in theory, EPA could regulate CO2 pollution sufficiently to take a bite out of the climate crisis. But, even if we had a perfect EPA doing its job in the purest way, this would always involve significant political risk. EPA regulation doesn't have nearly the broad political legitimacy as passing legislation. It is also far from clear how EPA would regulate this problem. Once you get into the details of regulation, you quickly encounter some of the very same issues that we're confronting in the legislation, namely which sources are regulated, how, who is excluded, how do you reward clean energy innovation, can EPA use carbon sequestration as a regulatory tool, etc, etc, etc??? Finally, EPA regulations are much easier to weaken from one administration to the next. Imagine where we'd be if, after strong EPA under an Obama administration, we end up with another Bush-like administration.

  I think the far better approach is to pass a strong, though imperfect bill, get the emission reduction program in place, prove it can be done in a way that doesn't destroy our economy, and work on strengthening the bill over time, like we've done with the Clean Air Act.

  See this post from Climate Progress, which addresses some of the complaints about ACES being too weak: http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/09/nasas-james-hansen-pushes-false-misleading-and-pointless-attack-on-u-s-climate-action/

  On Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  And, not to drag this out, but keep in mind the single most powerful argument the opposition has against global warming action is that it will cost too much and wreck the economy. Once we show that we can cut emissions, transition to cleaner energy technologies and begin solving the climate crisis without costing Americans much, we'll be able to strengthen our carbon-cutting efforts over time.

  On Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Javaman -- You may be right about the bill being watered down a bit, but I think passing Waxman-Markey was a very important and historic achievement and has helped advance our cause. We know we need to act now to avert run-away global warming. Everything that moves us closer to action is a positive step.

  We may not pass a perfect bill this year, but we need to act and we need to focus on keeping pressure on the Senate to move a bill. With a bill, we lay the foundation for ultimately solving the problem. Without one, we're doomed.

  And, we can strengthen over time in regulatory and legal fights and, if needbe, come back for better legislation down the road.

  The important thing is getting a damn bill passed, showing the world we mean business, putting our foot forward for the Copenhagen negotiations and working with other countries to cut total emissions 2-3% per year by 2050.

  On Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  georgiact -- Isn't that something. You question Wikipedia as a source for rather basic statistical facts and then refer us to a link connected with Heartland Institute? Very interesting.

  On McCaskill says House climate bill will sink in Senate posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses