<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Kerry energy speech]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by ffletcher http://www.grist.org/article/kerry-energy-speech/ Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:45:24 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/kerry-energy-speech/1 2050

Doesn't a goal forty plus years into the future sound like so much hot air, pardon the pun?  They set a goal up like that at the State level in California and then they ignore it.  It seems to me goals which one can be held accountable within one's life time are more apt to get done.

]]> 2050

Doesn't a goal forty plus years into the future sound like so much hot air, pardon the pun?  They set a goal up like that at the State level in California and then they ignore it.  It seems to me goals which one can be held accountable within one's life time are more apt to get done.

]]> Comment #2 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/kerry-energy-speech/ Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:54:58 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/kerry-energy-speech/2 Sure,

if you're thinking pragmatically. But Kerry's not. He's talking about a piece of legislation that has no chance whatsoever of getting passed. So it's purely for symbolic impact.

(And, of course, to boost his approval ratings on the left.)

www.grist.org

]]> Sure,

if you're thinking pragmatically. But Kerry's not. He's talking about a piece of legislation that has no chance whatsoever of getting passed. So it's purely for symbolic impact.

(And, of course, to boost his approval ratings on the left.)

www.grist.org

]]> Comment #3 by bookerly http://www.grist.org/article/kerry-energy-speech/ Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:24:21 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/kerry-energy-speech/3 Starting When?

    You are both correct.  Starting in 2010 is a meaningless idea.  Sigh.  If we have about 10 years to make a difference, and we don't "start" for four years (ha!  who wants to bet the deadline would be missed), than we are getting ready to jump into the quicksand (gee, we have plenty of time to get out!).

patrick

]]> Starting When?

    You are both correct.  Starting in 2010 is a meaningless idea.  Sigh.  If we have about 10 years to make a difference, and we don't "start" for four years (ha!  who wants to bet the deadline would be missed), than we are getting ready to jump into the quicksand (gee, we have plenty of time to get out!).

patrick

]]> Comment #4 by Ana Unruh Cohen http://www.grist.org/article/kerry-energy-speech/ Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:04:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/kerry-energy-speech/4 Poor Rep. Waxman

Maybe he is just a minor politician in Dave's book, but he beat Kerry to the punch with legislation that goes further - 80% reduction by 2050.

I think both formulations aim to hold steady our greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, which is pretty ambitious thing to do in the next 4 years given our emissions have been increasing each year for the past few decades.

These bills are important for more than just symbolic reasons. Laws often start out years before as symbolic bills that are gradually refined and/or accepted when the time is right.

]]> Poor Rep. Waxman

Maybe he is just a minor politician in Dave's book, but he beat Kerry to the punch with legislation that goes further - 80% reduction by 2050.

I think both formulations aim to hold steady our greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, which is pretty ambitious thing to do in the next 4 years given our emissions have been increasing each year for the past few decades.

These bills are important for more than just symbolic reasons. Laws often start out years before as symbolic bills that are gradually refined and/or accepted when the time is right.

]]>