<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for &#8216;Fix it or ditch it&#8217;]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by TheGreenMiles</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/fix-it-or-ditch-it/</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:55:54 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/fix-it-or-ditch-it/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Perfect the enemy of the very good<p>Cutting carbon emissions 63-70% by 2050 "undermines the principle" of cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050? Auctioning carbon permits to raise hundreds of billions of dollars for clean energy development, low-income energy assistance, and wildlife funding "undermines the principle" of making polluters pay?<p>
I'd love to get perfection at 80% and full auction, too. But if this very good bill could win over enough moderates to get us to 60 votes in the Senate (or if they vote no, expose "moderates" as opposing climate action), why not push it forward?<p>
Would the 2009 Congress/President move a stronger bill? Sure, I'd like to think so. But I thought sure this Congress would pass tough ethics reform and start bringing the troops home. Instead we got Larry Craig and the surge.

<p>Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at <a href="http://thegreenmiles.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">The Green Miles!</a></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Perfect the enemy of the very good<p>Cutting carbon emissions 63-70% by 2050 "undermines the principle" of cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050? Auctioning carbon permits to raise hundreds of billions of dollars for clean energy development, low-income energy assistance, and wildlife funding "undermines the principle" of making polluters pay?<p>
I'd love to get perfection at 80% and full auction, too. But if this very good bill could win over enough moderates to get us to 60 votes in the Senate (or if they vote no, expose "moderates" as opposing climate action), why not push it forward?<p>
Would the 2009 Congress/President move a stronger bill? Sure, I'd like to think so. But I thought sure this Congress would pass tough ethics reform and start bringing the troops home. Instead we got Larry Craig and the surge.

<p>Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at <a href="http://thegreenmiles.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">The Green Miles!</a></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by 4472jon</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/fix-it-or-ditch-it/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:26:15 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/fix-it-or-ditch-it/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>whatever</strong></p><p>who cares what foe has to say. its 15 people in washington, d.c. with some "members" they mock and never consult. they have about as much standing as the oil industry to decide what is the best approach to mitigating climate change.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>whatever</strong></p><p>who cares what foe has to say. its 15 people in washington, d.c. with some "members" they mock and never consult. they have about as much standing as the oil industry to decide what is the best approach to mitigating climate change.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>