In addressing the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, Congress has opened the first full debate on global warming in the U.S.
The author in the article linked below argues that the " ... only plausible theory ever offered for how such a bill might pass this year was that the business sector, faced with the certainty that both presidential candidates will be less hostile to pricing carbon than Bush has been, might decide to cut a deal this year while it still has Bush in the White House."
Your thoughts?
http://sierraclub.typepad.com/carlpope/2... That's an interesting theory, and a good point. Despite the fact that they would benefit from passing Lieberman-Warner (because there's a very good chance the Dems will have bigger congressional majorities and hold the presidency next year, and pass a bill with stronger emissions reductions goals), it sounds like it's not going to happen. Senate Republicans are complaining that the bill will cost too much, and even if they pass it, Bush has promised a veto.
I find it frustrating that the Republicans are so short-sighted. All the answers here so far have talked about taxes and the economy. They neglect the fact that as I have discussed in many answers, passing such a bill would simply slow economic growth without crippling our economy, and would help prevent crippling mitigation steps in the future which would have a much greater price.
As for taxes, American opposition on this subject also irritates me. Sometimes increasing taxes can do a lot of good. In France they have much higher taxes than the US, and as a consequence they also have the best health care system in the world, and some of the best schools. Two crucial areas where the US has fallen far behind. Opposing a bill just because it will increase taxes is extremely short-sighted. We have to weigh the gains against the losses, and the gains are crucial to our society. Yeah, 'tax' is a 4 letter word in the US, and that bugs the hell out of me. If I have to pay higher taxes but get good schools, good free health care, and free college, I'll pay the taxes! Report It
Lieberman-Warner is nothing more than a MASSIVE tax increase disguised as environmental protection. If there's anything that will ever impair the the US economy, it's going to be this. Not to mention, proponents even admit that it will only reduce the amount of greenhouse gases by a couple percent, and considering the cost to business, we'll basically be committing economic suicide. Also, consider your source. The Sierra Club is about as reliable as sourcing Joe Lieberman himself on the issue since their entire agenda is to destroy anything that might be harmful, or unnatural, to the environment even if it means taking down people's way of life in the process. Fortunately, I don't think it will pass while Bush is in office. However, whoever makes to the White House next, I think might back it, Obama or McCain. I've heard a lot of radio ads in my area asking us to contact our congress representative and ask them not to endorse this as it is putting this on the backs of hard working Americans. I tend to agree.
I live in a state that is already taxed to death. I very much doubt I'd need more taxes. Bigger government and higher taxes are not what anyone needs. "Global Warming" is just another "crisis" in which the government can say "oh goodie, something we can tug their heartstrings with." Like with schools, they can say "Oh don't you care about the children?" when they ask for more money. This they can say, "oh don't you care about the earth?" when they're robbing you blind. The biggest tax increase in US history and the biggest increase in government since the new deal.......
They should be sued for economic sabotage.
I thought they represented us, not world bank and UN interests.
I want no part of it. That's pretty obvious. Republicans have their best opportunity to get previsions like subsidies to coal mines and natural gas companies into the bill now, so they're eager to get it on Bush's desk. He'll pretend to complain, but sign it on his way out the door so he can say he was the first president to do something tangible about the problem..
During the debates, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will reap huge rewards in campaign donations from the coal industry, the oil and gas industry, the timber industry, etc., etc. Many will gain 10-20 pounds in the next 6 months from all of the lunches they'll have with lobbyists, during which they'll be handed checks. Democrats may delay the bill until next year to extend this windfall income and to remove some of the bigger subsidies to the damaging industries, but Rebublicans will offer them some easy and attractive concessions to buy passage now, so it's more likely to go through this Fall with a ton of waste spending built in. To minimize accountability it probably won't happen until after the November elections, so we'll hear a lot of pointless drama about it between now and then.
The good news: once we have a bill, people worldwide can focus on things other than the obvious fact that the U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol bt neither ratified nor withdrew from it. Maybe that gap in drama will enable people to start to notice that global emissions will not decline under such an agreement.
The bad news is that the bill, particularly in a rushed form that favors the coal and oil and gas industries, will be no more effective than Kyoto in reducing overall golbal emissions. Setting the expectation that developing countries don't have to watch their emissions will be a difficult precedent to overcome, especially as the other costs of climate change increasingly hit us all. When the economy goes in the tank and the climate cools, the alarmists will feel no guilt. They will remain proud of themselves and probably take credit for the cooling as they have taken credit for the acid rain and the ozone hole previous scare tactics that have fizzled away. Some are certainly just useful idiots (using Marx's meaning of the phrase) who really care about the environment though are generally ignorant of the underlying causes of the problems they claim to champion. I grew up in rural areas and love the woods and I am a true conservationist but environmentalism is an urban phenomena from people that don't know the woods. They can't understand what they represent to rural people. An analogy would be me telling City people how to live and restricting them from their favorite theater or concert. It is a power grab in a number of ways, the most destructive being the centralized power of the federal government becoming more and more intrusive. The naive look at the government as their savior but they are actually closer to their jailer, but I digress. Just shows how our government has been totally taken over by special interests now. Man made global warming doesn't exist. Don't be a fool who blindly believes that the far left are all about saving cute animals. There is an entire industry based around this latest climate scare (there is one every 30 years or so, either warming or cooling).
The global warming religion likes to use the National Academy of Science report as their bible, but this is bias and funded by special interest groups. Look carefully at the facts. For example, it states that temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees since the beginning of the 20th century. This is true. However, temps have NOT increased in the last 10 years. You'll notice that, in the 2008 report, none of the graphs contain data past 2000... sketchy, huh? It's because this defies the rising temp theory.
Even though the polar bears have now been put on the endangered species list, it is because they changed the rules. The population has actually tripled in the last 30 years. It's the reason that the governor of Alaska is now suing the federal government.
Furthermore, the ice shelfs are the among the highest seen in 30 years. Carbon dioxide is actually a good thing. The list goes on and on for evidence to the contrary of man made global warming, but there is no irrefutable evidence that it does exist.
No matter what environmentalists say (or how they say it), there is no evidence that man is causing global warming. They will use sleight of hand to try and get you, but don't be a sucker. For example, notice how NO commercials say anything about "global warming" anymore? The use the words "climate change" now. That's because environmentalists realize that time is becoming limited on this scare, but they can use the words "climate change" and keep us afraid that we're going to die, whether it be from warming, cooling, etc.
A link that'll get you started on your education (not funded by any special interest groups): http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...
For your own good, the good of the nation, and yes, the planet, you should be VERY skeptical. Look carefully at the facts and the language. Environmentalists are not always keeping the green of nature in mind. There is a lot of money to be made in this hugely expanding industry.
Even if you are someone who will never believe that global warming doesn't exist, think about this... it will cost 29 trillion dollars to fight this threat of sketchy (and special interest funded) "science" along with ruin our economy. Know how much it will take to feed the entire human population for the next 100 yrs? 7 trillion.
Still think we should be making public policies and spend all that money? Then do one thing for me before you call your local congressman: Name one thing that the government hasn't screwed up. My thoughts?
When Congress adjourned for Memorial Day recess, gas prices were soaring, circuit courts sat empty, and our troops were still waiting for funding to replenish supplies. Now, fresh off a holiday weekend in which most families paid $4 a gallon to drive to neighborhood barbecues. Imagine the frustration this week, as Congress returned to work--not on judges, marriage, or the war supplemental bill--but on changing the weather. By a 74-14 vote, the Senate agreed to devote days to the Lieberman-Warner legislation on global warming. Desperate to prove their environmental mettle, liberals are fighting for a policy that would bankrupt the economy and burden American taxpayers. The leadership says its goal is to slash CO2 emissions by almost 20 percent in 12 years, but conservatives argue the cost to American businesses and taxpayers far outweighs the negligible climate benefit. The bill's 500 pages are a complicated mess of distorted science, pork projects, and a tax-and-trade solution that will send U.S. jobs overseas and result in the most massive expansion of the federal government since the New Deal. In just 10 years, the tax burden to American families would skyrocket by $1 trillion. The average American would face higher heating and cooling bills, more pain at the pump, and expensive consumer products. From the less fortunate, the bill saps even more. As Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) points out in the Wall Street Journal, the poorest Americans already spend almost a fifth of their monthly budget on energy. By 2030, gas prices could climb anywhere from 45 cents to $1, and the U.S. economy would be on the hook for an extra $4.8 trillion. And for what? Even environmental advocates admit that in the end these concessions may do nothing to affect the earth's climate. After 40 years of Lieberman-Warner, the most that the Environmental Protection Agency is willing to promise is a one percent reduction in CO2 emissions. To hardworking Americans who are struggling to provide for their children, this entire debate is baffling. Sen. Inhofe, who has fought this global warming hysteria since 2003, challenged his colleagues to get back to business. "Will you dare stand on the Senate floor in these uncertain economic times and vote in favor of significantly increasing the price of gas at the pump, losing millions of American jobs, creating a huge new bureaucracy and raising taxes by record amounts?" Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of this bill is that the evidence is still very inconclusive about the climate threat. If anything is heating up, it's marriage. This Congress is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the real crises facing this nation as they refuse to intervene. |
