Grist - Comment Feed for Seeking a tougher climate bill, green groups set eyes on the Senate

Comment #1 by davescott

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:46:01 -0700

Thank you for noting the removal of EPA authority over coal-fired power plant emissions and the grandfathering of old, dirty power plants as flaws that need to be fixed. Your previous article on strengths and weaknesses omitted these, and they matter. I hope we can persuade Congress to strengthen the bill and pass effective climate legislation.

Comment #2 by domjoel

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:57:49 -0700

It is just about time to focus on bill that promote a good environment. Pollution and other elements that can cause harm must be stopped.

http://www.howtogettallersecrets.com

Comment #3 by batadam482

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:01:13 -0700

CALL FOR A STRONGER BILL: 1 PM FRIDAY ON THE HILL ACROSS FROM THE CANNON BUILDING

Check out the facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=95878184495#/event.php?eid=102148416225&ref=t

Comment #4 by Tr2828

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:31:21 -0700

Friday, yeah? Bill kabinwill make a strong güvenlik kabini call for more?

Comment #5 by randino

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:24:39 -0700

People think the US Senate - a bastion of obstructionism and reaction since the day it was created - will improve a climate bill coming from the House??? I would like to know what history they are basing this hope on, and then I would like to know where I can get some of the stuff they have been smoking. Must be some dyanmite shit. Randy Cunningham Cleveland, OH

Comment #6 by randino

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:28:07 -0700

Comment #7 by Sethil

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0700

A greater awareness and concern for the world, and our neighbors is nothing to be discouraged, but the truth is often twisted in what the popular media tells listeners, and that creates a misplaced concern and harms real people. I know friends who have been laid off in the "uber-rich" oil business because of the limitations on drilling. Real people losing their livelihood is harmful. CO2 isn't. The film Not Evil Just Wrong has a good approach to the green movement. http://noteviljustwrong.com/

Comment #8 by Vinfrommidwest

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:29:35 -0700

While I agree that the government should boost the alternative energy resources, this goes too far too fast. You can't save the planet if you can't eat. As a small business owner (I run a rental house on the side), this is bad news. Increasing everyone's electricity bill gives them less disposable income to pay rent. If people couldn't afford health care before, they definitely can't afford it now. wow. If people would have just waited, the market would have naturally taken its course to encourage alternative energy investments. There was no need to get the government involved at all. Once the price of electricity naturally hits 30 cents per kwh, all solar panel installations become an easy sell. I would liken this move by the government to the cause of the civil war. When the cotton gin automated harvesting, there was no economic reason to own a slave. The war might have been prevented. Think hard, when has a big government program EVER been hugely successful?

Comment #9 by randino

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:59:40 -0700

The cause of the civil war was the determination of the slave owners to defend and extend a social and economic system that classified one whole class of people as property to be owned. The investment in this system was enormous. Various people tried to present economic arguments on why slavery should be abolished, but in the end it was a moral argument that won the day. And so it will be with global warming. The moral argument that one generation should not destroy the planet that future generations will have to live on. Randy Cunningham

Comment #10 by Vinfrommidwest

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:23:20 -0700

The cotton gin wasn't invented until after the Civil War. How could have any economic argument of that time been heeded? You're reply is weak, and I suspect you'll be crying when you're latte' costs double. Prove to me that the higher $150/bbl oil costs from last year didn't kick start the alternative energy industry already. The existing system works. There is no need for a moral argument and congressional debate, because there is no need for government to get involved. Do you think that this huge TAX will be repealed if economic fusion / solar thermal / geothermal plants are installed? NEVER. The congress will NEVER give up this POWER. Pelosi and her like are uneducated, as much as Bush. I have kids, and this tyranny affects their liberty and our family's livelihood. You probably live in a large city, so you have no clue how badly this will affect the non-urban population, who depend upon cheap energy for their livelihood. The shock from the additional regulation and induced inefficiencies will put people in dire straits economically, debase the dollar, and stifle innovation that would have manifested itself naturally. Your lack of education regarding capitalism makes me sick.

Comment #11 by justlou

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:24:42 -0700

Hey Vin,

Here is a little history lesson in capitalism for you: Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1794, long before the civil war. By making cotton cheaper, this cotton cleaning machine, stimulated market demand and increased the South's economic dependence on slaves to grow and harvest the cotton by hand.

Comment #12 by Tyler Durden

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:57:39 -0700

Aww, you know "real people" who've lost jobs because they work in a totally evil industry that's quickly destroying the planet. I feel so sorry for you and your friends!

Guess what: I know a real planet that's being destroyed by the oil industry, among other things, and that clearly and easily takes precedence over any amount of job loss by anyone.

Massive and unnatural emissions of carbon dioxide are not harmful?! You are either really ignorant or an oil company shill. You deniers are quickly becoming and endangered species, and the sooner the better.

Comment #13 by Tyler Durden

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:03:46 -0700

This is a really selfish post, but it shows why humans will do nothing to stop global warming or anything else. A small business owner is worried that he'll lose some business because electricity costs a little more, and that's supposed to be more important than the environment? Than maintaining a livable climate? Sheesh, talk about ass backward priorities, self-centeredness and lack of spirituality! Well, as Bill Maher recently quipped, in Vin's world business will be good but we'll all be dead.

Comment #14 by Dave from Canada

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:29:53 -0700

Please don't feed the trolls.

Comment #15 by Dave from Canada

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:18:41 -0700

I hope the bill isn't much different in the Senate, or it won't become law.

One hole that should be plugged is the removal of EPA powers. Those powers should be restored in the Senate bill, if possible.

If not, then in fresh legislation introduced as soon as this one becomes law.

Comment #16 by Vinfrommidwest

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:17:16 -0700

You are all politically out of touch with the midwest. If you haven't read history, then you have no clue about the madness lurking around the corner due to this energy tax. You think you're saving the planet, but the fact is that you'll just export jobs to India and China, and at the end of the day, the dollar will be debased to little or nothing, and the climate will still have the same problems. The non-energy related items in this legislation are ridiculous, and will take away your freedom. Scarcity of resources will force energy prices to go up until renewables replace the infrastructure anyway. A big energy tax could go as far as to destabilize the civilization we live in. Would you like to live in the neighborhood with the first food/energy riots? really? The refineries might shut down, and we'd have nothing but imported gasoline. Would you like to live in the Gulf when that happens? That's a national security issue. Here's a thought: there were natural wildfires every 15-30 years in the west (Idaho) 200 years ago, caused by lightning. After the fire protection and regulation, those wildfires only happen every 50 years these days, but burn JUST AS MUCH AS 2 NATURAL FIRES. Is the Cap-and-tax going to stop wildfires now, too? Maybe we can legislate away the inconvenient laws of the universe next.

I want the best for my kids, just like all fathers would, and that means less government and more freedom. If this legislation were nothing but a tax to replace the federal income tax, or a tax to sequester greenhouse gases, I'd be all for it. But, IT IS NOT. It's filled with mandates and things that will take away freedom.

Comment #17 by Nuggetross

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:49:58 -0700

" You are politically out of touch with the midwest."
You are politically out of touch with most of the United States population centers. Is the midwest the USA?

Summary of post:

"madness" "export jobs to India and China" "destabilize the civilization we live in" "big energy tax" "best for my kids" "take away freedom"

I'm glad your response to the bill is so solidly rooted in research and facts rather than your idealogy...

Are these just the same talking points that we will hear from climate change deniers? Will the argument expand beyond loosely thrown around memes? Is John McCain wrong for backing cap & trade? Should he just blantly be kicked out of the GOP for supporting cap & trade?

I wish I could understand your "refineries might shut down" argument or the wildfire story...? Maybe I'll just try to restate your argument: cap & trade is just another way of the Democrats and some mutinous Republicans spreading their respective Communist beliefs. And uh, let's not let these un-American, tax-loving, out of touch politicians ruin the economy by investing in the scorge of the earth that is renewable energy and a clean environment...DRILL BABY, DRILL! That will solve all of our problems...

Comment #18 by justlou

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:12:35 -0700

Nugget: I say you are pretty well in touch with the politics of the rural Midwest. You have encapsulated much of what passes as the politically correct here. Independence is overrated here as so many mindlessly parrot what they need to follow and conform with the dominant community ideologies.

Comment #19 by Billhook

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:28:32 -0700

I've no information on the likelyhood of the Senate strengthening the bill,but there are clear pointers as to the scale of change needed if it is to become more of a help than a hindrance to the resolution of the global problem of human pollution destabilizing the climate.

Both the Chinese govt and the IPCC have been calling for the US to commit to a 40% cut by 2020 on its 1990 emissions, while the UK has, like other EU states, committed to around a 30% cut by 2020 given a global deal being agreed.

Thus if Obama really wants to provide US leadership on the issue, then he'd better see to it that the senate raises the bill's goal from its ludicrous 4% by 2020 at least to more than 30%.

Alternatively, we in Europe could fall in line with US "leadership" by cutting our commitments to just 3%.

If 4% is the best the US can manage, why should anyone else try harder ?

And, given the massive historical responsibility of the US, why should developing countries make any commitment at all ?

Let us be very clear - a lousy deal at Copenhagen based on the present Waxman-Markey bill would be a far worse outcome than no deal, and ongoing negotiations.

Regards,

Billhook