There is a real question whether economic schemes like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax would be more effective in quickly reducing CO2 emissions than regulations like the clean power plant rule or requirements for greater mpg from cars, trucks, and even big rigs.
1
I don't see where China's plan mirrors that of the US. The plan is to give incentive for using cleaner, lower carbon emmission fuels by giving a discount for their use, NOT for charging for carbon credits as proposed in the US model.
China has it right. It should not cost a company extra, but there should be incentive with cost-saving possibilities.
Who gets the benefit of the carbon taxes in the US model? This is fuel for more corruption.
China has it right. It should not cost a company extra, but there should be incentive with cost-saving possibilities.
Who gets the benefit of the carbon taxes in the US model? This is fuel for more corruption.
1
The fundamental flaw here is the lack of pricing carbon to change behavior. A revenue-neutral carbon fee could accomplish far more. It can be engineered to drive stronger GDP growth by using half the revenues to cut our uncompetitive corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, as suggested by the Partnership for Responsible Growth. It can be engineered to compensate lower and middle income families with a per capita tax credit/lump sum rebate with 35% of the funds, as demonstrated by Resources for the Future yesterday. And it can be engineered to protect domestic manufacturing with a border tax adjustment, which would also drive global adoption and enhance the competitiveness of American industry (due to our access to low carbon energy resources). So why isn't this the Republican answer to the climate challenge? We need a pro-growth answer.
2
Very few people are taking this seriously. It is a problem for the entirety of the human race, including the wealthy. It really and truly is the beginning of the sixth extinction, well documented and supported by every scientific and other knowledgeable organization in the world.
The main idea, that heat-trapping greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere increases the energy (heat) in the system (global warming), is resulting in disruption of our circulatory system (climate change) is uncontroversial and accepted even by many who call themselves "skeptics". They are not skeptical, being gullible to any idea or distraction that supports their opinion, and dismissive of a vast body of information.
I'm happy to see some people, like the Pope and our Democrats, continue to push against the well funded resistance to acknowledging the problem, but we need much much more.
We are a distracted people, addicted to stuff, and seeking reinforcement for our comforts and what we have come to take for granted.
Granted, it is not trivial to make the necessary cutbacks. It is not trivial to break down a system that supports big fossil on a humongous scale (trillions worldwide) and tends to give up on clean renewable energy (note the UK talks a good game but is advantaging fracking and removing support for wind, thanks to money and influence, as usual, in elections and power - sound familiar?).
We can because we must, and must is not negotiable.
The main idea, that heat-trapping greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere increases the energy (heat) in the system (global warming), is resulting in disruption of our circulatory system (climate change) is uncontroversial and accepted even by many who call themselves "skeptics". They are not skeptical, being gullible to any idea or distraction that supports their opinion, and dismissive of a vast body of information.
I'm happy to see some people, like the Pope and our Democrats, continue to push against the well funded resistance to acknowledging the problem, but we need much much more.
We are a distracted people, addicted to stuff, and seeking reinforcement for our comforts and what we have come to take for granted.
Granted, it is not trivial to make the necessary cutbacks. It is not trivial to break down a system that supports big fossil on a humongous scale (trillions worldwide) and tends to give up on clean renewable energy (note the UK talks a good game but is advantaging fracking and removing support for wind, thanks to money and influence, as usual, in elections and power - sound familiar?).
We can because we must, and must is not negotiable.
7
Excellent statement here, Susan. You make many fine points -- all the chief ones, particularly that we are too distracted with our stuff. It's a classic case of delusion.
We need a carbon tax with credits for using clean energy going back to the consumers.
4
With little commitment to the issue, the Senate Democrats by pushing the climate change legislation seem to be just test-firing to gauge the electoral impact of their act in the 2016 elections.
4
Val in Brooklyn. How to react & feel? We KNOW the bill won't pass w/Repubs. Painful to hear readers say Dems won't act fearing voter repercussions; that makes no sense. An uninhabitable Earth is the ultimate repercussion.
Some here suggest sacrifice. Done. Our current car bought--used w/ lower emiss. Drive it in tiny radius of our borough, and less. We use pub. trans. We walk. Late sister in Cambridge, England walked everywhere. I plan to buy a bike; is U.S. still behind the world on biking? Natural light in day, little as poss. at night. Mom's kidneys & bp=no meat. We're veggie freaks anyway. Advise me. Email my representatives? Tell me what to say, I'll say it. Higher gas tax. Painful, but we'll pay it. NO PAIN NO GAIN. Whatever's necessary.
My fear: '16 elections, obviously. SCOTUS. Koch Bros., etc.
My determination: no saying "if China won't, we won't. That gets us nowhere. Reading: The Oil and the Glory, Freedom From Oil, Jimmy Carter's latest memoir--he speaks on oil.
Seen docs: Surviving Progress, Who Killed the Electric Car? Will read: Silent Spring. It's relevant and analogous.
Suggestions on actions to take, etc.? Bring 'em on & please remember to hug a tree!
Some here suggest sacrifice. Done. Our current car bought--used w/ lower emiss. Drive it in tiny radius of our borough, and less. We use pub. trans. We walk. Late sister in Cambridge, England walked everywhere. I plan to buy a bike; is U.S. still behind the world on biking? Natural light in day, little as poss. at night. Mom's kidneys & bp=no meat. We're veggie freaks anyway. Advise me. Email my representatives? Tell me what to say, I'll say it. Higher gas tax. Painful, but we'll pay it. NO PAIN NO GAIN. Whatever's necessary.
My fear: '16 elections, obviously. SCOTUS. Koch Bros., etc.
My determination: no saying "if China won't, we won't. That gets us nowhere. Reading: The Oil and the Glory, Freedom From Oil, Jimmy Carter's latest memoir--he speaks on oil.
Seen docs: Surviving Progress, Who Killed the Electric Car? Will read: Silent Spring. It's relevant and analogous.
Suggestions on actions to take, etc.? Bring 'em on & please remember to hug a tree!
3
Where was Sen. Cantwell and her bill when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in 2009-10?
Crickets.
Much like Mrs. Clinton's "brave" Keystone XL pipeline announcement today--timed perfectly with the arrival of the Pope--this is all bread and circus.
Crickets.
Much like Mrs. Clinton's "brave" Keystone XL pipeline announcement today--timed perfectly with the arrival of the Pope--this is all bread and circus.
4
There were earlier bills, such as the American Clean Energy and Security act of 2009. This passed the House, but Democrats could not get the 60 votes in the Senate. Just a majority is not enough. Support seems stronger now.
3
Actually that's not correct. GOP lawsuit against Al Frankin delay his membership to the senate. Then Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by a Republican. Dems had a super majority for about 60 days.
1
Why did Dem need 60 votes? Didn't Harry Reid change senate rules so that 60 votes were not required?
America can go green and make mass jobs, boost small biz and biz big, why making the government 50% profit for free. It will save the public big bucks after 3 years, from saving 50% off their gas and power bills.
Their are 2 ways to do this. 1 is with a big biz taxes called a carbon tax. The other is by making a temporary 5% GST tax, that would turn every state in America green, within 3.6 years.
Nuclear and coal power cost big money, and the power company's rip us off. If we paid for solar panels with a 5% GST for 3.6 years. Every state would be green after 3.6 years.
A GST works on the pop size, so it works out the same. I have worked out every aspect of it, and it's 2 long to wright here.
You pay the tax and the government owns and runs green power plants. As they get all the stuff for free, they can charge 50% - 80% less for power. At least they make money for free, and we save money.
Lets just say it will make a jobs boom. It saves small biz 10% and will boost small and big biz profits.
Go to "oblique weapons" on fb. It's the 3rd post down.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1686028198296710&i...
Their are 2 ways to do this. 1 is with a big biz taxes called a carbon tax. The other is by making a temporary 5% GST tax, that would turn every state in America green, within 3.6 years.
Nuclear and coal power cost big money, and the power company's rip us off. If we paid for solar panels with a 5% GST for 3.6 years. Every state would be green after 3.6 years.
A GST works on the pop size, so it works out the same. I have worked out every aspect of it, and it's 2 long to wright here.
You pay the tax and the government owns and runs green power plants. As they get all the stuff for free, they can charge 50% - 80% less for power. At least they make money for free, and we save money.
Lets just say it will make a jobs boom. It saves small biz 10% and will boost small and big biz profits.
Go to "oblique weapons" on fb. It's the 3rd post down.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1686028198296710&i...
2
If we are to believe the Democrats if they win the Presidency, Senate and House, they enact huge tax increases, implement unilateral climate change legislation of massive proportions regardless of the impact on the US economy, raise min wages to $15/hour, and grant citizenship to the vast majority of illegals without focusing on border security. Similarly, the Republicans would cut devolve the EPA, not raise taxes even on the wealthiest, erect walls or at least maintain a permanent underclass of illegals, and keep min wage static forever, while defunding planned parenthood. As demonstrated when the Dem's had complete control, the Dem's did none of these things. Similarly, dozens of symbolic votes on Obamacare and potentially planned parenthood have made the Republicans Paper Tigers. We live in a world of grandstanding politicians who can never act in a cooperative manner designed to actually improve the country. Instead, they yell, stomp and pretend to govern.
1
The truth is nothing we do today will have any effect on climate change for at least the next several generations. If we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today it will take several hundred years before the atmosphere returns to
pre-fossil fuel era levels. We have stupidly and shamelessly embarked on a great and possibly fatal experiment with a momentum of its own. We are a stupid and selfish race that may have despoiled the planet beyond repair for life as we know it. The best we can do, and I am afraid it is too late, is to try to reduce green house gas emissions to as close to zero and possible and hope that in four or five generations the damage that we have caused can start to be reversed. Science has been far too timid in warning the public about the seriousness of the problem and bears much of the blame because it has allowed itself to be cowered by a greed-infected political establishment.
The frequency and intensity of severe weather events is occurring at the highest and most dangerous ends of the climate models. Feel good solutions are just whistling in the graveyard. We must address climate change mitigation with the same urgency that we would if we knew that a mass extinction meteor was certain to strike the earth in a few decades, while equally trying to find adaptation solutions to survive the coming climate calamity. I fear the human race has neither the will nor the intelligence to face the reality of climate change.
pre-fossil fuel era levels. We have stupidly and shamelessly embarked on a great and possibly fatal experiment with a momentum of its own. We are a stupid and selfish race that may have despoiled the planet beyond repair for life as we know it. The best we can do, and I am afraid it is too late, is to try to reduce green house gas emissions to as close to zero and possible and hope that in four or five generations the damage that we have caused can start to be reversed. Science has been far too timid in warning the public about the seriousness of the problem and bears much of the blame because it has allowed itself to be cowered by a greed-infected political establishment.
The frequency and intensity of severe weather events is occurring at the highest and most dangerous ends of the climate models. Feel good solutions are just whistling in the graveyard. We must address climate change mitigation with the same urgency that we would if we knew that a mass extinction meteor was certain to strike the earth in a few decades, while equally trying to find adaptation solutions to survive the coming climate calamity. I fear the human race has neither the will nor the intelligence to face the reality of climate change.
2
"While I very much applaud the Dems' stepping up on climate change regulation, I am at the same time somewhat dismayed by their taking a lesson from the Repubs rulebook -- i.e., symbolic voting on something that has no chance of passage."
Good point. As other commenters have pointed out, the Democrats did NOT do this when they controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Odd that they seem to prefer symbolic gestures over real action.
Good point. As other commenters have pointed out, the Democrats did NOT do this when they controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Odd that they seem to prefer symbolic gestures over real action.
7
We're lucky here in CA:
"America must confront global warming. If we fail, it won't matter how many sea walls we build, it will be a losing battle."
According to the official reports, sea level rises much more slowly on the West Coast than on the East Coast. If I recall correctly, NYC sea levels rise at about 1 mm a year faster than where I live (San Francisco), whose sea level, in turn, rises 1.27 mm a year faster than Alameda, just across the Bay and less than 10 miles away. Los Angeles is in between, though much closer to Alameda. Up in Oregon, sea level is actually dropping. In some parts of Alaska, it's apparently dropping at rather alarming levels.
Hard (impossible, actually) to explain these discrepancies other than to note the only possible explanation: a measure of sea level must take into account not only the level of the water but also the level of the land where the measurement occurs.
Certainly, though, there must be some "average" or "absolute" measurement of sea level that ignores land levels. Whatever that number is, we're fortunate here in San Francisco. I've been here 40 years and I can't notice any rise at all. Not saying there is none, but it's not enough that I've noticed it.
"America must confront global warming. If we fail, it won't matter how many sea walls we build, it will be a losing battle."
According to the official reports, sea level rises much more slowly on the West Coast than on the East Coast. If I recall correctly, NYC sea levels rise at about 1 mm a year faster than where I live (San Francisco), whose sea level, in turn, rises 1.27 mm a year faster than Alameda, just across the Bay and less than 10 miles away. Los Angeles is in between, though much closer to Alameda. Up in Oregon, sea level is actually dropping. In some parts of Alaska, it's apparently dropping at rather alarming levels.
Hard (impossible, actually) to explain these discrepancies other than to note the only possible explanation: a measure of sea level must take into account not only the level of the water but also the level of the land where the measurement occurs.
Certainly, though, there must be some "average" or "absolute" measurement of sea level that ignores land levels. Whatever that number is, we're fortunate here in San Francisco. I've been here 40 years and I can't notice any rise at all. Not saying there is none, but it's not enough that I've noticed it.
3
Sean (who says he lives in Maryland, thousands of miles from CA, and therefore may be forgiven for his mistake) writes:
"California is at the forefront of this fight and they pay 50% more for fuel and electricity as a result."
I've been living in CA for 40 years, and traveling to other states often during that time. I can assure you, Sean, that this is not correct. We certainly do pay more for fuel, but it's nowhere near 50% (probably around 10%, but I'll confess I don't know the exact %). Where in the world did you hear this 50% number?
"California is at the forefront of this fight and they pay 50% more for fuel and electricity as a result."
I've been living in CA for 40 years, and traveling to other states often during that time. I can assure you, Sean, that this is not correct. We certainly do pay more for fuel, but it's nowhere near 50% (probably around 10%, but I'll confess I don't know the exact %). Where in the world did you hear this 50% number?
3
The top charity for climate change activists is the NRDC. The top charity for breast cancer activists is Susan B. Komen. Susan B. Komen collects three times more donations than the NRDC annually. Apparently, healthy breasts are a lot more important than survival of the human species. It's time for climate change activist to put their money where their mouths are.
1
Cynical, indeed, given that Senate Dems had an opportunity handed to them on a platter during Obama's first year, then dropped the ball in a most pathetic fashion. More cynical than Republican's, who deny climate change merely to attract conservative votes? Hardly.
1
ACES passed the House, but could not get the 60 votes needed in the Senate. It did not pass because of Republican resistance.
I am certain this is NOT a 100% political waste of time and money. And stupid - there still is no EMPIRICAL evidence of humans causing the daily changes in the weather. If you Democrats don't believe in a God, why do you believe in the fantasy of CC?
Http://www.periodictablet.com
Http://www.periodictablet.com
A rare aggressive initiative from a party that usually tries its best to avoid rocking the boat.
1
There is no chance of this bill passing. There is every chance that it will drive the partisanship train down the tracks of inaction--protecting the corporate desire for maintaing the status quo. The Democrats can pander to the vocal, selfie entitled NIMBY base, laughing at the rubes in flyover country, knowing full well they are not endanering their corporate support. And the Repblicans? Well they can triumphantly pander to their anti-science, antl- education base, number 1 with a bullet.
Corporate-controlled Washington is tiresome in its predictability.
Corporate-controlled Washington is tiresome in its predictability.
While a long-overdue carbon tax may be the only practical way to affect serious carbon reductions in the U.S. among an unmotivated public, it is not the only way. Whether through taxation or other means, we will only see meaningful change when end users change their behaviors. That means less travel by air, modest vehicles, modest homes, careful use of HVAC in well-insulated homes, consumption of less meat, etc. This could all happen now — without the cooperation of lame and ignorant politicians or the American Petroleum Institute. What are WE waiting for??
2
These types of "symbolic votes are a waste of time. Why don't they spend their time on the more important issues of the day? This is truly not one of them.
As a geologist and modeler, I can make any model show what I want. Living in Colorado, I can see where the glaciers used to be 100s of thousands of years ago. They were long gone before cow farts, industrialization, and other human influences. Yet alarmists that want to profit through taxation and regulation do not look at the past as a predictor of the future. The Little Ice age, and historical cycles of hundreds of years of drought all occurred before man had any impact, Many miss the fact that volcanic activity, solar flares, and other natural causes have more impacts on the climate than us. To say they do not ignores earth's history which is well documented in the geologic record.
It is all about the economy, and without substantial economic growth, we are in trouble. Let's focus on job creation, and not job reduction.
As a geologist and modeler, I can make any model show what I want. Living in Colorado, I can see where the glaciers used to be 100s of thousands of years ago. They were long gone before cow farts, industrialization, and other human influences. Yet alarmists that want to profit through taxation and regulation do not look at the past as a predictor of the future. The Little Ice age, and historical cycles of hundreds of years of drought all occurred before man had any impact, Many miss the fact that volcanic activity, solar flares, and other natural causes have more impacts on the climate than us. To say they do not ignores earth's history which is well documented in the geologic record.
It is all about the economy, and without substantial economic growth, we are in trouble. Let's focus on job creation, and not job reduction.
1
I think this is such a great idea you can't imagine. Most people want to tackle climate change until you tell them how much it will cost them. California is at the forefront of this fight and they pay 50% more for fuel and electricity as a result. They have become an information economy where a few make and a lot make very little because many of their industries have departed for lower cost jurisdictions. If you ever get a moment, go take a look at electrical rates in developed countries with high renewable generation. It's often double or triple the US rate. Blue collar wage earners have figured this out and that's why this president had an "all of the above" strategy in 2012 when he was up for re-election then transitioned to climate priority after that and he lost the senate and faces a bigger majority of Republicans in the house. Democrats making climate change a central issue in the 2016 election is an answer to prayers by Republicans.
3
There are hard cost questions related to climate change that are not being addressed head on. Phoenix folks pretty much need air conditioning and older air conditioners generally leak the chemical coolant. For $50, you can buy the needed coolant. But that is illegal. Local law requires you to buy a new compressor for about $2,000. Your repairman will tell you that he can get black market coolant and your air conditioner will be good for years. Of course, leaking coolant is a significant global warming issue. $50 or $2,000, which way do you go? In my neighborhood, everyone's compressors seem to last a long time. Republicans and Democrats make similar decisions when their pocketbooks are in issue.
2
The Dems seem pretty comfortable with the Republican House majority. They can portray themselves as pro-environment - a stance that they did nothing to support back when they had the White House and both chambers of congress in 2009/10 - and not risk the wrath of their corporate masters by actually passing pro-environment legislation.
1
How exciting, yes we have climate change ( but not man made). Its been changing for millions of years, and will continue to do so...all by itself. We can't control the climate or the weather, in fact I've never seen a liberal that can to date. So when your friendly liberal environmentalist says, give us control of this climate change, and don't mind if I raise your taxes to pay for it, ask them , what exactly are you going to do with my money, except spread it around the world to try and achieve Global Socialism?
4
Increasingly I find that deniers so adamantly deny not because of their denial of the truly overwhelming evidence supporting man made global warming, but of their deeper fears of a one World government. Perhaps we can move past the denial phase if the deniers were more willing to put a name to this irrational fear.
1
"yes we have climate change ( but not man made). Its been changing for millions of years, and will continue to do so...all by itself."
YES, how else do you explain how Greenland got its name in 1000 when it had trees and there was no man made carbon dioxide to account for it?
YES, how else do you explain how Greenland got its name in 1000 when it had trees and there was no man made carbon dioxide to account for it?
2
I would say that most rational people when presented by the actual climate data, and a historical record of climate over the past million years, would conclude that human caused climate change is virtually nonexistent. Since the next likely event is a mini ice age, I would be much more worried about how we are going to feed he earth's population.
3
Well James, I would say "most rational people" would conclude that scientific evidence and the opinions of over 97% of the planet's scientists, who have no motive to lie, outweighs the fossil fueled propaganda of serial polluters who have a very clear motive to lie.
4
This infinitely refuted party line is not likely to generate much discussion here.
1
On the other hand, I would say that scientists have concluded the opposite--that climate change can and is being caused by human activity.
Scientists working in this field, like it or not (and you apparently don't like it), are in a better position to judge than joe the plumber--they are "experts". In this country there is a lot of "anti-expert feeling". And yet, those who doubt the work of climate scientists will generally consult an MD for health issues, will bring their cars to an auto mechanic, will hire a lawyer to represent them in court, etc. Why the anti-climate scientist bias?
Scientists working in this field, like it or not (and you apparently don't like it), are in a better position to judge than joe the plumber--they are "experts". In this country there is a lot of "anti-expert feeling". And yet, those who doubt the work of climate scientists will generally consult an MD for health issues, will bring their cars to an auto mechanic, will hire a lawyer to represent them in court, etc. Why the anti-climate scientist bias?
3
Republicans blame the poor, sick, and hungry for not "taking responsibility". But when it comes to billionaire serial polluters, gun manufacturers, Republican Presidents who sell invasions for profit based on outright lies, and Wall Street thievery, taking responsibility is off the table.
18
So, does the 2% reduction correlate with a reduction in the number of pediatric asthma cases or only the severity? How many kids and adults must suffer while we worry about maximizing profits in a doomed industry?
4
This is long overdue.
5
If we are serious about addressing climate change, we will declare a moratorium on road building, encourage the building and upgrading of mass transit systems and intercity rail, and retrofit communities to facilitate walking, cycling, and transit use instead of assuming that everyone can and will drive.
In addition, we need to fund projects that seek non-petroleum substitutes for plastics and other petroleum-based projects.
In other words, instead of fighting wars for oil, let's use the same amount of money to reduce our need for oil.
In addition, we need to fund projects that seek non-petroleum substitutes for plastics and other petroleum-based projects.
In other words, instead of fighting wars for oil, let's use the same amount of money to reduce our need for oil.
13
So yes, we should do more on mass transit, bicycling, etc. - but you seem to assume that cars are an unfixable problem when a number of excellent electric vehicles are already on the road with more in development. Let's not make it more difficult to convince people to support carbon reduction policies; if people still want the freedom to drive, its possible to do that and still reduce greenhouse emissions.
2
While I very much applaud the Dems' stepping up on climate change regulation, I am at the same time somewhat dismayed by their taking a lesson from the Repubs rulebook -- i.e., symbolic voting on something that has no chance of passage. How much of Congress's (and the American people's) time have the Repubs wasted with symbolic votes to repeal Obamacare, etc.? So, while I applaud the Dems' initiative on this, I just hope it doesn't become a trend of introducing legislation time and again that doesn't have a snowball's chance in California of getting passed. We've experienced way too much of that already from the GOP "leadership."
10
The big difference is that the Dems are the minority in Congress and have no choice. And this is more than symbolism, and certainly different from the dozens of quixotic votes against the ACA. This is really the only thing Democrats can do to elevate the issue in a GOP controlled Congress.
10
They only recently have been in the minority. In fact the reason that nothing was done while they were in the majority was that they didn't want to pursue policies that would require sacrifice and increased costs for voters. Now they have the ability to bring this forward, knowing it won't pass, so that they can provide there liberal bona fides without incurring that sacrifice by the voters.
3
This climate bill wont pass, yet it is a way that keep the conversation alive about what we must move forward, no matter Republican obstructionism in the present. We must increase and continue to generate grass root efforts in voting out those politicians who continue to deny climate change science and block resources to confront it in the present.
1
Good time to rebuild our infrastructure with climate change a central theme. Good time Clean up our own back yards, meaning individually and collectively as a country, as positive influence for China and India and other countries. Good time to create jobs around these issues for those who continue unemployed, and those suffering from diminishing coal industry. Good time to divest from fossil fuel magnate corporations. Good time for NYT to feature a series of comprehensive articles on background and present in Americas challenges, carbon, methane, acidity, in working comprehensively toward decreasing climate change threats in America. And excellent time to build grassroots efforts to vote out politicians who wish to keep us from moving forward in creating jobs through infrastructure improvement and rebuilding, more clean energy research and creation of viable solutions for America. Our military has been doing this for quite awhile, wind farms going up in numbers many don't read of. Has the NYT times published articles around this topic ? If they have, I have missed them and would like very much to read more here.
6
Sorry, China and India will never clean up their backyards, and while we all share the same air, no matter what we do in the US, we are fighting a no win situation.
It teaching ecological isues in does my heart well to read about the newest attempt to pass legislation on climate change. After teaching ecological issues in biology curriculums at many school . may we be reminded of Rachel Carson and her work called SILENT SPRING
6
Silent Spring was about the use of pesticides. This article is about carbon dioxide.
What you write about Mary's comment is so, but it ties in to ways the wealthy poison the unsuspecting majority population until someone like Rachel Carson researches and speaks out. How about, This Changes Everything, by Naomi Kline, an astute woman who writes of Climate change. Or perhaps, The Sixth Extinction, by Elizabeth Kolbert. There are so many good books out there now that one can hardly claim ignorance as an excuse. If we cant afford them new, we can purchase them used, order them from our libraries, or borrow from friends.
1
Maybe if the President stopped flying a 747 to play a round of golf I'd take this more seriously.
7
Maybe if you educated yourself on the facts and the catastrophic consequences of what is happening now you might take this more seriously.
Climate change may be the biggest pocketbook issue ever. The Democrats don't tell us that. The Republicans are science deniers. The Democrats are cost deniers. Meanwhile, the problem gets worse every year.
5
A steadily-increasing carbon pollution fee on all fossil fuels that's returned, 100%, by law, to every American every month would cost consumer and taxpayers nothing while phasing out fossil fuels. Same tax on imports from carbon-polluters would create emissions cuts there while the import "dividend" would create jobs here. Been working as promised in British Columbia for seven years, lowering taxes and energy bills while growing their economy faster than any other Canadian province (The Economist) Projected to create 2.8 million jobs here and increase GDP by $75-80 billion annually. (REMI) See the Citizens Climate Lobby to more information.
1
Why did it take the Deems so long? This is why I get disappointed in them.
4
The Democrats had control of the House, Senate (filibuster proof) and Presidency from 2008-2010 and choose to do NOTHING on Climate Change because they knew it would hurt the economy and cost them votes. Now that they can propose legislation that has ZERO chance of passing but can be spun in a manner to appeal to progressives (without actually being implemented and causing harm to the economy with the attendant adverse election consequences) they are suddenly Climate Change Warriors. Funny and pathetic at the same time.
11
I believe that they were concerned about dealing with the ruined economy and relentless recession that lasted most of those two years so I am not sure what you are on about other than taking a partisan swipe at the Democrats. Oh , and that wrecked economy and recession, the handiwork of one George W Bush. Another lame attempt at deflection.
3
It was not filibuster proof. Was close, but there were a handful of (mostly Southern) Dems who voted against Obama on most issues.
Exactly. Obama's first several years were all about avoiding the Great Depression II. Considering those years were wasted and not many new initiatives could be started, he has had a very successful Presidency.
In response to WiltonTraveler
The free market is like a child in a bath tub full of water where the child has turned the tap on. The water is coming thru the first floor ceiling and the parents run in the bathroom, grab towels and start wiping up the floor. But the parents fail to turn off the water so no matter how hard they work they lose ground.
America must confront global warming. If we fail, it won't matter how many sea walls we build, it will be a losing battle. The real danger for the world and thus American is that global warming becomes self-amplifying-- we are at that threshold. Read, "As Fires Grow, a New Landscape Appears in the West" By JOHN SCHWARTZ, in today's paper, perhaps the most disturbing news, since the collapse of major ice field's in Antarctic last year and their inevitable movement to the sea. Schwartz's article discusses new research that says our forest are far less resilient than thought before and rather than removing CO2 from the air they may becoming net contributors thru fire, drought, and loss of ecosystem.
If we care about future generations, we must act now. Bravo to Democrats. But Democrats should present a second bill that is an income neutral tax on the use of fossil fuels. A tax that is redistributed to all citizens monthly based on conservation that punishes heavy users.
Action on global warming is the future and probably the only future open to humanity. What we do today determines that future.
The free market is like a child in a bath tub full of water where the child has turned the tap on. The water is coming thru the first floor ceiling and the parents run in the bathroom, grab towels and start wiping up the floor. But the parents fail to turn off the water so no matter how hard they work they lose ground.
America must confront global warming. If we fail, it won't matter how many sea walls we build, it will be a losing battle. The real danger for the world and thus American is that global warming becomes self-amplifying-- we are at that threshold. Read, "As Fires Grow, a New Landscape Appears in the West" By JOHN SCHWARTZ, in today's paper, perhaps the most disturbing news, since the collapse of major ice field's in Antarctic last year and their inevitable movement to the sea. Schwartz's article discusses new research that says our forest are far less resilient than thought before and rather than removing CO2 from the air they may becoming net contributors thru fire, drought, and loss of ecosystem.
If we care about future generations, we must act now. Bravo to Democrats. But Democrats should present a second bill that is an income neutral tax on the use of fossil fuels. A tax that is redistributed to all citizens monthly based on conservation that punishes heavy users.
Action on global warming is the future and probably the only future open to humanity. What we do today determines that future.
4
About time....
7
This is one of THE most important issues we and the world face. It is of vital human interest that requires all to put aside their political fealty to the special interests. Time is running out to save our planet and I'm to see most Democrats pushing forward a positive agenda rather than playing defense against the delay, deny and defund program advocated by the Republicans in support of Big Oil and Big Coal. The coal industry is already near extinction due to market forces and the world is now awash in too much oil. This is the perfect time to accelerate away from carbon-polluting fossil fuels to the clean energy future that will cleanse the air we all need to breath.
6
Right into the wastebasket, where it belongs....
3
Unity is what we want to see from the Democrats. Unity on every issue, and careful, honest introspection about what you have become, and what you truly want to be. (Read: NOT Republican-Lite.) Do it quickly.
7
Count on Congress - always good for looking like they're doing something.
4
The root cause of all environmental problems including any effect of humans on the climate is overpopulation, but there is no leadership to address it. As the global population increases from about 7.4 to some 10 billion carbon-generating human heaters this century, incremental per capita increases in energy efficiency will have little or no effect on our developing environmental catastrophe, particularly as more humans adopt energy-intensive lifestyles as promoted by Democrats and most Republicans. Furthermore, the US is a minor player in carbon emissions, so the major effect of any of the current proposals ("... the United States to use its leadership to secure commitments from other countries..." is unlikely to have much impact) will be to create profit opportunities for a few while harming most Americans economically.
3
I agree with your theme regarding population growth, but I have to say that we, as 4-5% of the worlds population do produce 25% of CO2 emissions. That's not a 'minor player'. Yes, we produce 25% of goods and services too. We need to act, and be leaders. That's within our span of control. Nothing gets better by displacing responsibility. Displacing a couple of billion coastal people as sea levels rise is not going to be avoided that way, maybe not at all. It won't be pretty.
6
Minor player? The US is the second-largest producer of CO2 and the top per-capita producer of the gas.
Could you please reveal where you got your information?
Could you please reveal where you got your information?
11
Here's a wacky question: which side of the aisle is about to shut down the government because they want to defund some org called, wossname, "Planned Parenthood."
Planned Parenthood...Planned Parenthood. I wonder what it is that they do at Planned Parenthood?
Planned Parenthood...Planned Parenthood. I wonder what it is that they do at Planned Parenthood?
1
If they want to do something, put a duty on all products from China where products for this market are made with primarily coal based energy. Of course that would upset our corporate masters so instead we get the equivalent of the Repubs voting down Obamacare
3
The GOP controlled Congress is sitting on the arm of big energy, who in turn are the ones that make their lips move. Any discussion of energy policy is an
obfuscation of the truth based on callous greed and myopic self interest.
obfuscation of the truth based on callous greed and myopic self interest.
22
This singular issue highlights the cost of political corruption and mass public deception engineered by the same clowns who ran the tobacco industry denial campaign for years, forestalling congressional action for years. This connection was exposed by numerous researchers and in the movie "Merchants of Doubt". Judging by some of the comments here, the campaign has been successful planting fear, uncertainty and doubt sufficient to forestall any move toward what is urgently needed now - an immediate and carbon tax based solution.
As the mounting evidence of global warming continues, many deniers have quickly shifted from their untenable alternate reality that the earth is really not warming due to human activities, toward the position that any change will cause massive disruption for the public. In truth, a massive movement away from fossil fuels will cause hardship - to the fossil fuel industry. A substantial segment of the public has been brainwashed into thinking that their interests are the same as the fossil fuel industry. The industry's bought and paid politicians bring home that message loud and clear.
What is entirely missed by the critics of strong climate action now is the unthinkable costs of delay, up to and including the extinction of the human species. How does that compare to a carbon tax?
As the mounting evidence of global warming continues, many deniers have quickly shifted from their untenable alternate reality that the earth is really not warming due to human activities, toward the position that any change will cause massive disruption for the public. In truth, a massive movement away from fossil fuels will cause hardship - to the fossil fuel industry. A substantial segment of the public has been brainwashed into thinking that their interests are the same as the fossil fuel industry. The industry's bought and paid politicians bring home that message loud and clear.
What is entirely missed by the critics of strong climate action now is the unthinkable costs of delay, up to and including the extinction of the human species. How does that compare to a carbon tax?
21
This is terrific, but do our legislators really need to spend their time tilting at windmills (no irony intended)? There's no budget, the cost of prescription drugs is skyrocketing. Could they spend their energy (both Democrats and Republicans) on what they can pass?
While lowering carbon emissions and promoting renewable sources are laudable goals, shouldn't we also be building the infrastructure that our coastal cities need to stay above water? That would create jobs and protect lives. Because even if we stopped emitting carbon right now, sea level rise is now inevitable. How about a little realism in Congress rather than political posturing.
While lowering carbon emissions and promoting renewable sources are laudable goals, shouldn't we also be building the infrastructure that our coastal cities need to stay above water? That would create jobs and protect lives. Because even if we stopped emitting carbon right now, sea level rise is now inevitable. How about a little realism in Congress rather than political posturing.
Since they only spend an average of 13 hours a week on the floor, I think they have plenty of time, and resources, to do both.
1
While they are at it, why not fashion a bill that protects sick people from being exploited by drug entrepreneurs who make medical treatment unaffordable when they raise prices 5000% of vital drugs, triggering premium increases by insurance companies--again--and making health care a luxury item? Where's the fight for that bill? Guess we'll have to elect Bernie Sanders to get any kind of leadership on this issue. If we can't afford health care, it won't matter what the climate is because we won't be around to deal with it.
3
McConnell will agree so long as Volkswagen engineers can draft the language.
4
Why don't republicans care about the environment?
5
It's so frustrating to read articles like this. WE, the people, can slow climate change much faster by REDUCING our carbon footprints! So much of what we do in our daily lives: eating meat, driving alone in our car, flying for any reason at all.... these can all be reduced and still we have a wonderful lifestyle. If we cut back for 10 years, THEN wait for new technologies we can make a difference. Carpooling 1x a week is a 20% reduction in vehicle emissions! WE have the power, the power to REDUCE!
7
Hear, Hear. EACH one of us has the power to make a difference for the climate, in our daily, humdrum lives. Start thinking, start doing..or not doing.
3
One of the starker examples of what the climate change agenda proponents are up against can be found in George Will's attack on the Pope's environmental views, in yesterday's (9.21) Washington Post. It's a jaw-dropping pastiche of half-truths, outright untruths, archaic casuistry and a petulant tone that ill-befits him. If we accept that "truth is the first casualty of war," then the compelling logic of immediate action against global warning will grow more and more obscured as the real battles approach.
7
McConnell is old, he doesn't give a hoot about climate change and apparently has little concern for his children and grandchildren's future. Dinosaurs like him need to step aside as well as the other GOP obstructionists who are persistently opposed to the natural evolution of social and economic progress in this country or face certain political party extinction. The world has moved on Mitch, you need to as well or get out of the way.
6
McConnell also has a guaranteed-to-fail approach to secure employment for people in his state.
Coal mining provides less than 1% of the jobs in Kentucky, and that dropped as the mining companies started the incredibly destructive mountaintop removal process. Companies got more coal with fewer employees, and did more damage to the environment.
Coal is doomed and Mitch is fighting for the owners rather than the voters.
Coal mining provides less than 1% of the jobs in Kentucky, and that dropped as the mining companies started the incredibly destructive mountaintop removal process. Companies got more coal with fewer employees, and did more damage to the environment.
Coal is doomed and Mitch is fighting for the owners rather than the voters.
Call it what you want, but when you propose an unpassable bill, you're playing politics. Both parties do it. According to the Times, when the Republicans do it it's divisive but when the Democrats do it it's constructive. In fact, when either party does it, it's a divisive tactic that serves a strategic purpose for that party. Political posturing is business as usual. It should consistently be reported as such.
1
You are in essence proposing that the Democrats do nothing, since the GOP reflexively rejects everything proposed by the Dems.
You are advocating that — like the GOP — the Dems refuse to get involved in actual governance.
You are advocating that — like the GOP — the Dems refuse to get involved in actual governance.
7
Seems people, companies, and governments go into debt most often when not budgeting or having a comprehensive view of expenses. Our government/industry cabols are experts at not taking a comprehensive view and instead play endless SHELL games where like keystone pipes get a wink and a nod with the mental gymnastics able to justify them. It was called out by Jaques Costeau many years ago when he said the interests/politicians around the Mediteranean would practice the art of delay and deciet forever if allowed or something like that.
The Presidient and Hillary have made ALL OF THE ABOVE EXCEED DRILL BABY DRILL and like saying not saying anything untill day after Arctic Drill is in place and still no solid NO for keystonexl Hillary would likely continue these shell games with Burn Baby Burn while calling it something else.
But a comprehensive plan would look at madness of opening up more oil for export when we still import huge amount. Yet that is the next pea under the shell. Considering things like rare cancers for children 7 million asthma cases and almost 4 million premature deaths each year from outdoor air pollution and the massive ecocide that comprehensive view would surely demand a much cleearer budget. The side affects could mirror the 25% lives saved on our hwy's now close to 40 thousand just from a simple slowdown as we had in the 70's.
The last thing we need is a smoking like game which is ongoing where the government stays in on the take of industry.
The Presidient and Hillary have made ALL OF THE ABOVE EXCEED DRILL BABY DRILL and like saying not saying anything untill day after Arctic Drill is in place and still no solid NO for keystonexl Hillary would likely continue these shell games with Burn Baby Burn while calling it something else.
But a comprehensive plan would look at madness of opening up more oil for export when we still import huge amount. Yet that is the next pea under the shell. Considering things like rare cancers for children 7 million asthma cases and almost 4 million premature deaths each year from outdoor air pollution and the massive ecocide that comprehensive view would surely demand a much cleearer budget. The side affects could mirror the 25% lives saved on our hwy's now close to 40 thousand just from a simple slowdown as we had in the 70's.
The last thing we need is a smoking like game which is ongoing where the government stays in on the take of industry.
This is the first gambit in a long game. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a great goal, but it is much harder to accomplish than many people realize. The next learning experience will be when we find that we cannot - at least cost-effectively (whatever that may mean) - hit these reduction targets with conventional energy conservation approaches. 2% a year for the next 10 years? Unlikely even without economic growth.
Then comes the hard part - the realization (hopefully) that we cannot continue to live our lives as we always have and nibble around the edges to secure energy efficiency. No, a serious and costly rethinking of housing, public transportation, private transportation, requisite comfort conditions and manufacturing processes is going to have to take place. This would begin to broach ideas far beyond anything our policy makers are currently willing to even speculate about.
We will, of course, hear about how "innovation" will save us (thanks Tom Friedman - unfortunately thermodynamics trumps even your enthusiasm for innovation) - and quick fixes (geo-engineering would be my guess), but the acidification of our water is always going to drive the need for reduced emissions.
So this is the first step in a long march that will take us to places we can't even imagine yet. I appreciate the democrats throwing down the gauntlet, but we're about to find that "trying harder" with the status quo is not going to cut it. We are headed into new territory.
Then comes the hard part - the realization (hopefully) that we cannot continue to live our lives as we always have and nibble around the edges to secure energy efficiency. No, a serious and costly rethinking of housing, public transportation, private transportation, requisite comfort conditions and manufacturing processes is going to have to take place. This would begin to broach ideas far beyond anything our policy makers are currently willing to even speculate about.
We will, of course, hear about how "innovation" will save us (thanks Tom Friedman - unfortunately thermodynamics trumps even your enthusiasm for innovation) - and quick fixes (geo-engineering would be my guess), but the acidification of our water is always going to drive the need for reduced emissions.
So this is the first step in a long march that will take us to places we can't even imagine yet. I appreciate the democrats throwing down the gauntlet, but we're about to find that "trying harder" with the status quo is not going to cut it. We are headed into new territory.
10
IT-HAS-TO-START-SOMEWHERE. Why not here, today?
1
The transition to lower carbon-based fuel society is well on its way, and this planned effort of a 2% annual reduction in CO2 can only be seen as another positive step in the efforts to minimize and mitigate the negative climate effects of greenhouse gases. One relatively quick and easy way to address the 2% reduction should include a rapid transition to natural gas instead of coal as the fuel source for electricity generation. The US has many decades, if not centuries, of available natural gas from the recently developed shale deposits, and natural gas emits but a small fraction of CO2 vs. coal. Its a shame that many coal miners will lose their livelihoods, but that is a small price to pay for the overall benefits to the planet and its inhabitants. This transition can most effectively be implemented by levying a CO2 tax, on the order of $15 - $20 per ton. Industry will jump at the change, and we will all benefit for generations to come.
Republican elected officials' near-universal rejection of consensus science and urgent warnings from the most respected scientific bodies in the world is unprecedented. And given the scale of risk and the threat of severe, irreversible global harm, it is not excessive to use words like "atrocity" or "crimes" or "sick." Those are the only apt words there are.
3
Democrats are more than happy to strangle American corporations and manufacturers with more and more emission restrictions. Meanwhile, China, India and every third world country continue to pollute at will and kicks our economic butts. They have both passed us as the leaders of greenhouse gas emissions, and yet they are never called to task on pollution. As usual, the U.S. is whipping boy and pays the price of emission controls and legislation, while the biggest polluters get a pass.
2
The emissions from old outdated fossil fuel burning plants are strangling Americans and filling their lungs with toxic substances that have lethal effects on health. That is OK as long as the vaunted American Industrialists can put another dollar in their overstuffed pockets??? Those companies that have enacted active programs to reduce and in some cases eliminate emissions have found it to be cost saving and in some cases very good for the bottom line. Other countries including China have faced the consequences of pollution and are doing something about it. China's programs to reduce emissions have become very aggressive. So that dog about "others not doing anything so we shouldn't either" doesn't hunt anymore. We cannot keep spewing crap into the water, land and atmosphere of this planet without negative consequences. How is it that those who want our country to be Number One in everything, always want to be last in doing whats right for the environment.
12
Good. Now would those Dems please unveil an Infrastructure bill, one in the neighborhood of the $3 Trillion that would be needed to overhaul it properly?
Such a bill, if passed, would boost jobs, wages, the economy and our quality of life -- all in one "swell foop" (or fell swoop, if you prefer).
Talk about saving the nation -- and the world!
Such a bill, if passed, would boost jobs, wages, the economy and our quality of life -- all in one "swell foop" (or fell swoop, if you prefer).
Talk about saving the nation -- and the world!
6
A great idea. You want that to happen? Then we need to make sure we need to make sure that we have a VETO-proof Democratic Congress. Otherwise, nothing will happen.
2
Could it be that the success of Bernie Sanders' campaign is giving Democrats the courage to finally start acting like Democrats?
19
"“This is about what we can get done here, now,” Ms. Cantwell said. "
In fact, this is quite the opposite. It is a gratuitous, grandstand, nakedly political ploy that has no chance of passing.
In fact, this is quite the opposite. It is a gratuitous, grandstand, nakedly political ploy that has no chance of passing.
2
Big oil suppressed climate change science for decades. It still does:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warmin...
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warmin...
6
Well, somebody has to do the job and since the Republicans are always "in the way" preventing anything from happening (to please their own agendas) and without putting on the table any sensible solutions to any of them, GOOD job Democrats!
4
Nonsense!!! The highly destructive, fossil fuel funded TP/GOP has no interest in Climate Change, use every opportunity to debunk the science and their track record negotiating with Democrats~dismal. It is~a fact!
1
Alternative:
Republicans vow to allow planetary ecosystem collapse rather than permit a science based agenda. "The American people must be free to serve the interests of the fossil fuel industry, just like the GOP. This insistence that chemistry and physics are "science" is just left-wing liberalism. We'll fight this desire to make modest adjustments to our energy landscape to the end...down to the last of the 99% - we don't care if it kills most of the poorer American people, the American people will be dependent upon the fossil fuel industry until they die!"
Republicans vow to allow planetary ecosystem collapse rather than permit a science based agenda. "The American people must be free to serve the interests of the fossil fuel industry, just like the GOP. This insistence that chemistry and physics are "science" is just left-wing liberalism. We'll fight this desire to make modest adjustments to our energy landscape to the end...down to the last of the 99% - we don't care if it kills most of the poorer American people, the American people will be dependent upon the fossil fuel industry until they die!"
2
They are fighting over deck chairs on the Titanic. Two percent by 2025? We need 100 percent now. There is no issue that is more pressing, more urgently needing to be addressed, than climate change. Our grandchildren's lives depend on it. But big oil will not let go. It is tragic.
3
If you expect these "centrist" Democrats to go 100% for anything, you must be a newly naturalized citizen. They aren't even willing to protect the sick from being fleeced by drug companies who raise prices 5000% overnight, thereby limiting the number of people who can afford to spend $750 for one pill. What good is an improvement in the climate if we are all six feet under due to unaffordable health care? Vote for Bernie Sanders.
The American taxpayer needs to divest from fossil fuels. If the oil and coal companies lost their taxpayer subsidies it would be really helpful, leveling the playing field for alternative energy. The media should be doing an article on this over and over and over again, so the American voter understands how much they are really paying for their cars and power. That would have an impact.
51
WV and ND are very different states, but both or facing short-term pain as their fossil-fuel industries are in trouble.
WV faces the end of its coal business. It's DOA, CO2 or not. The coal is played out, too costly to produce, and demand for US coal is ending. Western and foreign production is too cheap: Columbia can deliver it by ship to the US Atlantic coast cheaper than WV can. WV needs to move on, and could use some help from the rest of America to do that.
Oil and gas interests in ND are facing the hangover after the party. Oil is < 50 $/bbl; fracking the Bskken is thought to be at breakeven at about 65 4/bbl ... and fracked wells have very short productive lives. Drilling is turning off, not to return unless prices go up to near 100 %/bbl again.
http://fortune.com/2015/01/09/oil-prices-shale-fracking/
North Dakota can make more money for far longer with wind power than fracking the Bakken ... and do a lot less damage to its roads and streams and soil.
North Dakota wind power is already a big producer: almost 18% of the state's generation is wind-power, and growing fast. Wind capacity factors in ND are very good -- much more can be built if it can be brought to market. The CapX2020 line turned on in April 2015 -- ND needs yet more transmission east to develop its wind energy further.
http://capx2020.com/fargo/index.html
WV faces the end of its coal business. It's DOA, CO2 or not. The coal is played out, too costly to produce, and demand for US coal is ending. Western and foreign production is too cheap: Columbia can deliver it by ship to the US Atlantic coast cheaper than WV can. WV needs to move on, and could use some help from the rest of America to do that.
Oil and gas interests in ND are facing the hangover after the party. Oil is < 50 $/bbl; fracking the Bskken is thought to be at breakeven at about 65 4/bbl ... and fracked wells have very short productive lives. Drilling is turning off, not to return unless prices go up to near 100 %/bbl again.
http://fortune.com/2015/01/09/oil-prices-shale-fracking/
North Dakota can make more money for far longer with wind power than fracking the Bakken ... and do a lot less damage to its roads and streams and soil.
North Dakota wind power is already a big producer: almost 18% of the state's generation is wind-power, and growing fast. Wind capacity factors in ND are very good -- much more can be built if it can be brought to market. The CapX2020 line turned on in April 2015 -- ND needs yet more transmission east to develop its wind energy further.
http://capx2020.com/fargo/index.html
3
Embracing and funding new technologies to minimize our use of carbon based fuels is crucial. The "free market" in energy, except for a few notable exceptions like Tesla, dedicates itself to generating profit, which leaves the government to fund future research and funds to transition our nation. We cannot afford a national government that is not committed to curtailing carbon based energy usage. If we can't get these dinosaurs and flat earthers out of office, future generations will suffer and pay mightily.
Fantastic! How effective will this bill be at slowing emissions in China and India where the growth is actually coming from? Oh...
1
Our job is to lead. And it is fantastic to be a leader in Climate Change. Historically, we have contibuted to the huge growth in green house gases. We lead, others will follow. Not to mention, creating and selling green technology is good business!
Finally, the Democrats go on the offensive. Why so late? Just keep putting legislation out there that outlines your agenda, what the party stands for, and then stand back allow the crazy to happen across the aisle.
4
Instead of running away from Obama and getting a "shellacking" as they did in 2012, they are standing with him and the principles of the Democratic Party and acting for the people. Democrats must take every opportunity to remind the American people that when they say "the American people" that they mean ALL of the people. Republicans are representing the 1%, and everyone else can go to hell. Republicans deny climate change because they work for people who take advantage of and profit from climate change and all of those activities that result in pollution and global warming. While the coal miners may lose their jobs, their lives will be safer, their children's lives, and the planet. Democrats could sue to have all coal miners compensated for the health risks that they have sustained. The existing unenforced laws should provide adequate cause.
Democrats who don't sign on to this bill should be identified as employees of big coal and denounced. Failure to end fealty with big coal is not excusable.
Democrats who don't sign on to this bill should be identified as employees of big coal and denounced. Failure to end fealty with big coal is not excusable.
1
If their "climate change" bill is anything like their "affordable health care act," which it likely will be, that is, thousands of pages of special interest "stocking stuffers" authored by unelected, for-hire consultants, then it will backfire on democrats of course. If readers want to get a clearer picture of what special interest and the UN's IGPCC motivations are (it has little if anything to do with lowering pollution or investing in new energy technology), the Schiller Institute's new publication on global warming is a good primer.
3
I hope this proposed legislation changes the game when the Republicans challenge EPA authority in court and try to pull the money on the agency. Constituent support undoes the lack of authority argument while agency penalties - Duke Energy and VW for example - put the cost to carbon. I hope Republican states realize before it's too late how flexible Obama's plan is.
1
It's hard to understand why Mitch McConnell is always whining.
After all, his state, Kentucky, still, has the exclusive contract to supply all the coal that powers the International Space Station.
After all, his state, Kentucky, still, has the exclusive contract to supply all the coal that powers the International Space Station.
4
Both political parties are bipartisan beholden to the corrupt, criminal, cynical crony capitalist, corporate plutocrat oligarch, welfare fossil fuel industrial- complex caste. Just what we need. Another impotent political stunt.
Democrats never really talk about the costs of these bills. We need only to look at Germany, where the middle and working classes are forced to pay some of the highest utility rates in the world, to see what happens when Green Fanatics take control of a national agenda. Wind and Solar are not reliable power sources, and the Democratic Left, which now controls the Party, cannot abide nuclear. This leaves the Dems trying to convince the public that a "carbon free future" will be cost free. It certainly will be to billionaires like Tom Steyer. But for the rest of us, lower living standards are inevitable. The Dems just can't say that out loud.
4
I wonder how much patrolling the middle east costs--in order to secure our carbon rich future, you understand.
2
What good is a few more bucks in your pocket if you — and your kids and grandchildren — can't breathe clean air, drink clean water and cultivate clean soil?
4
Who said anything about 'cost free'? It will be costly. Question is do you/we want to continue the march towards extinction or mitigate it? Sadly, the right either uses denial (of fact re: Climate Change) or feels indignant about the costs. Yet, no compunctions about spending outrageous sums of taxpayer money on an Endless War Budget that makes us less safe, creates fewer jobs and doesn't address the issue of our time~the survival of the planet!
6
The problem with this is explained well in the fourth paragraph: The reason the Democrats are doing this is not because it will accomplish anything whatsoever, but because they think it will help them to regain control of the Senate in the next election.
That is no different that the Republicans voting to repeal Obamacare 47 gajillion times in the House knowing full well it will never actually happen.
Meanwhile, roads and bridges are falling apart, veterans are going without health care, children are freezing and starving on the streets, the Pacific Northwest is burning, innocent people are getting gunned down (some by the police sworn to 'protect and serve'), major corporations are robbing people of their life savings. But we can't actually deal with any of that. This feels a lot like the Lannisters and the Starks putting all their resources into fighting each other while the undead hordes are beginning their invasion.
That is no different that the Republicans voting to repeal Obamacare 47 gajillion times in the House knowing full well it will never actually happen.
Meanwhile, roads and bridges are falling apart, veterans are going without health care, children are freezing and starving on the streets, the Pacific Northwest is burning, innocent people are getting gunned down (some by the police sworn to 'protect and serve'), major corporations are robbing people of their life savings. But we can't actually deal with any of that. This feels a lot like the Lannisters and the Starks putting all their resources into fighting each other while the undead hordes are beginning their invasion.
5
As I first read this I was ecstatic. But any plan that doesn't include a carbon tax (much preferred to cap-and-trade) is idiotic at best. Mandatory reductions of 2%/year are silly without providing a mechanism to incentivize movement towards RE/EE. It is critical that any policy price the negative externality of carbon emissions and pollution and to create a clear market signal that that price will rise sharply over time.
This is not real leadership. It's political posturing.
This is not real leadership. It's political posturing.
30
In 1979 I had a geography class at a UW extension in Wisconsin. The professor of the class was also the official weather keeper of the area. In the class was a cylinder in a glass case. The cylinder would slowly rotate and a pen mounted on the cylinder would record the temperature change. One day before class he announced that the record for consecutive days without the temperature going above freezing was broken. We went 80 straight days. All the talk back then was about global cooling. The professor dismissed that notion and said that the over all trend was for more warming. He cited recessional moraines as an example of cooling periods in a warming world.
Wisconsin was under a mile of ice just 14000 years ago. Now that ice is 3000 miles north of here. I believe in global warming but how much of it is mans involvement I question. Beyond that though carbon fuel is a finite resource. We will run out of it someday and regardless of your position on global warming the problem will be solved. Before then how about coming up with comprehensive energy policy that takes into account the eventual diminishing supply of carbon fuels. Even a skeptic of man made warming would be okay with that.
Wisconsin was under a mile of ice just 14000 years ago. Now that ice is 3000 miles north of here. I believe in global warming but how much of it is mans involvement I question. Beyond that though carbon fuel is a finite resource. We will run out of it someday and regardless of your position on global warming the problem will be solved. Before then how about coming up with comprehensive energy policy that takes into account the eventual diminishing supply of carbon fuels. Even a skeptic of man made warming would be okay with that.
"But the Democratic measure lacks the one policy that most experts say is essential for addressing planet-warming pollution: a price, or tax, on carbon. The idea is to make it more expensive to burn fossil fuels and to drive the market toward energy such as wind and solar."
That single paragraph encapsulates the issue of anthropogenic global warming neatly. AGW is a cost that has yet to be paid for the economic prosperity brought by the industrial revolution, and we who've enjoyed the benefits of that prosperity are only too willing to let those who haven't, pay the cost.
That the Cantwell bill has no chance of passage, even without mention of a carbon tax, illustrates just how dysfunctional our democracy has become. You'd think the GOP would embrace the idea of a carbon tax as a straightforward market-based solution to AGW, but that would require them to accept the scientific evidence that AGW is actually happening. How has the Republican party strayed so far from the principles of Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower?
I've been a registered Democrat for 40 years, but if the Republican were to support a carbon tax, I'd have no trouble switching parties.
That single paragraph encapsulates the issue of anthropogenic global warming neatly. AGW is a cost that has yet to be paid for the economic prosperity brought by the industrial revolution, and we who've enjoyed the benefits of that prosperity are only too willing to let those who haven't, pay the cost.
That the Cantwell bill has no chance of passage, even without mention of a carbon tax, illustrates just how dysfunctional our democracy has become. You'd think the GOP would embrace the idea of a carbon tax as a straightforward market-based solution to AGW, but that would require them to accept the scientific evidence that AGW is actually happening. How has the Republican party strayed so far from the principles of Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower?
I've been a registered Democrat for 40 years, but if the Republican were to support a carbon tax, I'd have no trouble switching parties.
1
I suspect there are a lot of Republicans that understand very clearly AGW and also know they've painted themselves into a corner. They just don't yet see a face saving way to escape.
I think too, you would have lots of company switching to an enlightened Republican Party that put a priority on dealing with the climate "existential threat."
I think too, you would have lots of company switching to an enlightened Republican Party that put a priority on dealing with the climate "existential threat."
1
Instead of taxing carbon why don't we just end the subsidies to the oil industry? I'm in favor of sending Exxon/Mobil the bill for the operational costs of the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet.
Either way, funds generated from the fossil fuel industry should not only be directed to sustainable energy research, development, and installation, but to provide job training to former coal miners and oil rig operators for manufacturing, installation and maintenance of green energy systems.
Either way, funds generated from the fossil fuel industry should not only be directed to sustainable energy research, development, and installation, but to provide job training to former coal miners and oil rig operators for manufacturing, installation and maintenance of green energy systems.
1
There are no subsidies direct/specific to the oil and gas industry. There is depletion allowance, but that is a standard business deduction used by every company in the mining industry - salt, bauxite, gold, silver, etc. Try and get educated.
When the NYT focuses a story (as it occassionally does) on critical problems facing the country and the world, and what is being done about it, the Times should consider providing essential background for understanding the issue and context. E.g., the importance of the National Climate Assessment was the focus of an editorial but has scarcely been mentioned in any news stories. The Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future, and its here: (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
And in case any readers missed an article a year and half ago, given the implications for politics at the the national level, it might again be worth mentioning that climate change is viewed as a growing and critical threat by the US military, although Republicans have taken up a campaign of attempting to hush the military's voice on this. See article by CORAL DAVENPORT, MAY 13, 2014. Any attempt at fully understanding the political situation should take account of the Pentagon’s 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap .... and how the military has been taking on the climate change deniers (See, e.g., http://www.damascuscitizensforsustainability.org/2014/11/military-takes-....
And in case any readers missed an article a year and half ago, given the implications for politics at the the national level, it might again be worth mentioning that climate change is viewed as a growing and critical threat by the US military, although Republicans have taken up a campaign of attempting to hush the military's voice on this. See article by CORAL DAVENPORT, MAY 13, 2014. Any attempt at fully understanding the political situation should take account of the Pentagon’s 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap .... and how the military has been taking on the climate change deniers (See, e.g., http://www.damascuscitizensforsustainability.org/2014/11/military-takes-....
6
Excellent news, although I wish it occurred 20 years ago. I hope this new bill is more than just a campaign tactic. While a carbon tax may be impossible for now, clear and consistent economic incentives that favor renewable energy will have a huge impact. Existing incentives for solar PV have created the largest US jobs growth in the past 5 years. There are now more jobs in solar PV than in all of coal (coal mining, transportation, and power plant operation). Solar PV jobs are growing 20% per year. (see for example, http://fortune.com/2015/01/16/solar-jobs-report-2014/).
Going forward, increasing incentives for clean renewable energy, removing incentives for fossil fuels, and increasing energy efficiency standards across all industries will be the best way to continue to grow the US economy and improve people's lives.
Going forward, increasing incentives for clean renewable energy, removing incentives for fossil fuels, and increasing energy efficiency standards across all industries will be the best way to continue to grow the US economy and improve people's lives.
2
This is why its so critical that a Democrat is elected to office next year. We MUST ensure that this momentum to reverse the damage we have done already continues apace.
19
The determination to do something is laudable. The cap and trade or tax on carbon system has opponents and will generate more as it is more understood. I suggest that the “fee and dividend” plan of the Citizens Climate Lobby will be more accepted and more effective. This proposal uses market principles to align the incentives for all of us to use energy more efficiently and cleanly. This concept is that a fee is imposed at the source of carbon production – which will increase the cost of energy to the consumer – but all the collected fees are returned to citizens. Thus for the individual this is revenue neutral. Thus saving a gallon of gasoline will save the consumer several dollars and in addition they get a rebate from the government. The individual then has greater financial incentives to conserve. It makes renewable investment more profitable and not dependent on subsidies. The free market responds to the new reality with better technology and products generating jobs. See the Citizens Climate Lobby website for more details.
Our legislative and political process has become a joke. Spending time and money on proposing legislation, the impending battle making front page news, predictable loss, for political gain when this issue won't make or break a party in the elections.
Would it be politically damaging for the democrats to acknowledge that methane from cows is causing near to 6 times the warming of our planet than the burning of fossil fuels, besides deforestation? Is this too big an apple to bite?
3
Because there is no viable source of alternate energy that is both economical and able to supply enough energy to support our economy, this bill should never see the light of day. Wind and solor don't even come close and are still expensive even with the large federal subsides they receive. As usual the increased costs will hurt the poor and impoverished the most, but only in their rhetoric, not actions, have the democrats ever really cared about poverty. When truely viable alternate sources of energy are available, only then can and sould we start eliminating fossel fuels.
Although the AGW industrial complex will never acknowledge the thuth due to its profit and power motives, Co2 represents only a small amount of greenhouses gas in our atmosphere and man made Co2 is only a very small percentage of the total Co2. The amount of Co2 we put in the atmosphere can only have a small negligable effect on the climate, not the catastrophic effect the AGW crowd would have you believe. (Use Google to easily locate peer reviewed scientific papers that support my claim).
Although the AGW industrial complex will never acknowledge the thuth due to its profit and power motives, Co2 represents only a small amount of greenhouses gas in our atmosphere and man made Co2 is only a very small percentage of the total Co2. The amount of Co2 we put in the atmosphere can only have a small negligable effect on the climate, not the catastrophic effect the AGW crowd would have you believe. (Use Google to easily locate peer reviewed scientific papers that support my claim).
2
It's ironic how the same Democrats who complain about the futile bills repealing ACA now do the same themselves. Naturally these are political posturing rather than realistic attempts to forge any modicum of commonality.
1
I doubt they will try to bring this to a vote over 50 times like the Republicans did to repeal the ACA. I think it IS a good idea to get on record who wants to do nothing to improve climate change. These is no "plan B" if we destroy the planet.
4
Americans have to ponder the implications of the Republican stand against saving our environment. They have become the Party of No, to negotiated peace with Iran, the party of Yes to support Israel over the interests of the USA, become the party of anti-science, anti-education, and anti decent human wages. It is clear they are bought daily by corporations and the wealthy (not that Democrats are innocent of this as well). If American voters ponder this seriously, there will be a resulting change in Congress come the next election.
1
I can't wait to hear what the Pope says about this. Even he believes in climate change. Hopefully he will address it in his speech to Congress and put those right wing clowns on the spot.
7
Some House Republicans insist on passing bills to deny funding to Planned Parenthood, although they know full well that it will never get through the Senate. And now, some Democrats hope to bring up a bill that they know will never get through the next House, even if they are able to get it through the Senate, which is doubtful. Is there anyone in Washington with an interest in proposing legislation that can actually be passed? Sadly, I doubt it.
3
"Aggressive" is a poor choice of words for a news title because it suggests that the bill is pushing limits, when in fact it does not do enough.
The question is "how does this bill address the scientific consensus around climate change?" The answer unfortunately is, it is inadequate. Without a price on carbon, economists have concluded that legislative action is not likely to achieve needed CO2 emission slowing. Additionally, relying solely on regulation rather than dynamic pricing is a less economically efficient way to reduce pollution.
By framing this modest (in relation to the problem) bill as "aggressive" the NYT plays into the problematic mainstream news narrative that there are 2 equally valid sides to the climate change policy debate.
The question is "how does this bill address the scientific consensus around climate change?" The answer unfortunately is, it is inadequate. Without a price on carbon, economists have concluded that legislative action is not likely to achieve needed CO2 emission slowing. Additionally, relying solely on regulation rather than dynamic pricing is a less economically efficient way to reduce pollution.
By framing this modest (in relation to the problem) bill as "aggressive" the NYT plays into the problematic mainstream news narrative that there are 2 equally valid sides to the climate change policy debate.
2
I'm sorry, but there comes a time where Article I of the Constitution must be suspended, and the President can act with the Senate, without the House.
Seriously.
Seriously.
We should go nuclear. The fourth generation nuclear plants are completely safe, and it is the cleanest energy around. The waste is minimal and can be stored (not disposed) safely, even recycled.
See documentary: Pandora's Promise.
See documentary: Pandora's Promise.
2
The best thing that could happen for the Democrats would be something to the effect of "The Republican Party, sponsored by Volkswagen".
4
Jobs in solar, wind, re-insulation, etc already outnumber coal jobs. It should be noted that coal jobs are not being "eliminated." They are being "displaced" by cleaner jobs that also eliminate dangerous pollutants. A giant wind and solar farm on top of the West Virginia mountains filled with coal would go a long way toward mollifying Manchin.
32
hoorah !!!!!!!
1
It's been a long time coming but finally an American political party is highlighting this incredibly important issue. The future of coming generations depends on whether or not we can protect the very thin layer of earth, water and atmosphere that made the evolution of life possible. Bravo Democrats for finally taking a clear stand.
2
There is good news. First, the net cost of moving beyond CO2 producing fuels is already probably less than zero. Combine the now lower (than conventional) cost of producing wind and solar electricity, very low cost control technology and rapidly developing storage technology, and there's just no economic rationale for delay.
There is conversation about taxing carbon emissions. It's just not yet very often reported on the front page. One proposal that is a contest winner in the 2015 MIT Climate CoLab competition suggests $60/ton to generate $333B in revenue that would offset a 1/3 reduction in payroll tax (FICA) rates. http://climatecolab.org/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301419/planId/1319612
There is conversation about taxing carbon emissions. It's just not yet very often reported on the front page. One proposal that is a contest winner in the 2015 MIT Climate CoLab competition suggests $60/ton to generate $333B in revenue that would offset a 1/3 reduction in payroll tax (FICA) rates. http://climatecolab.org/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301419/planId/1319612
5
The only thing this legislation will do is damage the American worker and economy. Trump is right when he states that China laughs at us. Until ALL the industrial powers act together, it is simply folly for us to lead the way when India, China, etc. continue their detrimental ways. Does anyone really think that our unilateral actions will really influence other nation's' policies? They will simply reap whatever economic advantages they can and the enviroment be damned.
2
Whether this particular bill has a chance of passing, it's good to throw down the gauntlet for Republicans to either come up with a measure of their own, or make clear that they don't find an issue of national and global importance to be politically expedient.
14
How is the left pushing these laws that are DOA in congress any different than the right trying to defund Obamacare? Maybe they should earn their pay by looking at places where there is common ground and actually pass a bill or two instead of taking useless votes simply so you can claim to stand for something.
3
The Republicans have a coherent program: First, ban all forms of birth control including abortion to force the birth of large numbers of unwanted children. Second, speed up climate change to encourage the Earth to abort all human life from itself in a series of end-time weather events. This efficiently speeds first the production of souls, and then the harvesting of them. In their fantasy, making the Earth a hell is the highway to Heaven.
26
It's a good move...except it doesn't matter.
The American people have made it clear that they wants bigots, homophobes, misogynists, racists and xenophobes, who are also soul-less, science-illiterate corporate suits to run the country.
Too bad we don't have two vice-president positions.
Then we elected Carson-Fiorina-Trump 2016!
The American people have made it clear that they wants bigots, homophobes, misogynists, racists and xenophobes, who are also soul-less, science-illiterate corporate suits to run the country.
Too bad we don't have two vice-president positions.
Then we elected Carson-Fiorina-Trump 2016!
3
We have a planetary emergency that we've been ignoring for decades, now beginning to surface in a variety of disastrous ways.
We have an entire political party doing their best to support big business at the cost of humanity's future, and a whole garbage PR mirror universe supported by the wealthiest industries on earth.
We have a large number of people who think their politics are more important than reality, and say so with force and often hostility, refusing to exercise any curiosity about the best expertise and primary sources, the history, the evidence, or anything that disagrees with their opinion, and insisting on being called "skeptics".
Exploitation and degradation are not the way to be.
In my view it is about acknowledging responsibility for the future and for all of humanity, such as it is. We have a slowly developing emergency, a possibility to use our skills and intelligence and humanity to grow into taking care of things. Or we can go on distracting ourselves with ever more marketing and consumption and all go together. No magic wand is going to make all tidy. But the means are ready to hand, the warnings clear, and decades old, and the time is now.
This may be too little too late, but it's a whole lot better than nothing.
We have an entire political party doing their best to support big business at the cost of humanity's future, and a whole garbage PR mirror universe supported by the wealthiest industries on earth.
We have a large number of people who think their politics are more important than reality, and say so with force and often hostility, refusing to exercise any curiosity about the best expertise and primary sources, the history, the evidence, or anything that disagrees with their opinion, and insisting on being called "skeptics".
Exploitation and degradation are not the way to be.
In my view it is about acknowledging responsibility for the future and for all of humanity, such as it is. We have a slowly developing emergency, a possibility to use our skills and intelligence and humanity to grow into taking care of things. Or we can go on distracting ourselves with ever more marketing and consumption and all go together. No magic wand is going to make all tidy. But the means are ready to hand, the warnings clear, and decades old, and the time is now.
This may be too little too late, but it's a whole lot better than nothing.
5
As stated by one of the republican candidates for president, America is not a planet. And this is true. But America happens to share one; the only one we know of that can sustain us. It is well past time for us to act accordingly.
41
Good news. This will set off a massive race between the republicans as they scramble to distance themselves from this initiative, much as they have jostled their way further and further into the far-right wilderness on so many divisive issues in an effort to prove that they are the "most conservative."
Now let them go on record as being opposed to protecting our planet at a time when climate-related incidents and disasters seem to be an almost-daily occurrence.
Now let them go on record as being opposed to protecting our planet at a time when climate-related incidents and disasters seem to be an almost-daily occurrence.
23
2% per year for 10 years is not enough to avoid catastrophic warming. We must leap into the new renewable energy future over the next decade. Unfortunately, we'll have to find a way to leap over Republicans.
14
If we really want to address climate change, then legislation must be introduced that incorporates energy storage technologies. Wind power is already cost competitive when life cycle costs are figured in. The higher initial cost is offset by the essentially free "fuel" costs. Solar is continuing to decline in price.
The article describing the Cantwell bill makes no mention of energy storage. Taxing carbon is a good move, but if we want to eliminate it, then we have to be able to level out the variability of renewable sources.
Battery technology is moving by leaps and bounds. Fortunately, the demands on stationary storage batteries are much lower than those on car batteries. They can be housed in climate controlled buildings, no crash hazard, no vibration, and weight is no that much of a factor. That all means they are easier to make.
We must develop legislation that allows utilities to be able to make money off of energy storage. A pricing structure for energy storage must be implemented just as we have a pricing structure for energy generation. The two should be treated as equals. In doing so, the distributed nature of renewables can be much more easily incorporated into a utility's operations. This type of structure would more easily allow the public to participate in energy production.
The article describing the Cantwell bill makes no mention of energy storage. Taxing carbon is a good move, but if we want to eliminate it, then we have to be able to level out the variability of renewable sources.
Battery technology is moving by leaps and bounds. Fortunately, the demands on stationary storage batteries are much lower than those on car batteries. They can be housed in climate controlled buildings, no crash hazard, no vibration, and weight is no that much of a factor. That all means they are easier to make.
We must develop legislation that allows utilities to be able to make money off of energy storage. A pricing structure for energy storage must be implemented just as we have a pricing structure for energy generation. The two should be treated as equals. In doing so, the distributed nature of renewables can be much more easily incorporated into a utility's operations. This type of structure would more easily allow the public to participate in energy production.
3
Talking about a carbon tax is to be changed to talking about Fee-and-Dividend. This latter climate reduction methodology has many advantages over carbon taxing schemes as James Hansen and others have demonstrated.
Personally, I am in favor of the Tierra Fee & Dividend approach which is part of a carbon-based international monetary system with its Tierra standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such system that combats the looming climate catastrophe and advances low-carbon, climate resilient development are presented in Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation” and updated at www.timun.net.
Personally, I am in favor of the Tierra Fee & Dividend approach which is part of a carbon-based international monetary system with its Tierra standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such system that combats the looming climate catastrophe and advances low-carbon, climate resilient development are presented in Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation” and updated at www.timun.net.
1
"The bill has no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress,"
The Republican Party is demonstrating that it is totally controlled by the likes of the Kochs and other petroleum and coal interests. Climate change will cause terrible disruptions to future generations. There will be an increase in the frequency and intensity of severe weather events, mass migrations will occur as populations move from areas harmed by climate change to those that see an improvement in their climates. Political unrest caused by social and economic upheaval will threaten the national security of the US and many other nations.
Instead of taking a leadership role in the mitigation and adaptation of climate change, the United States, under the control of a troglodyte GOP Congress, has made itself the laughing stock of the world. Republicans like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) throw snowballs in the Senate and Fred Upton (R-MI), the House Energy Committee, now a leading climate change denier, received $20,000 from Koch employees.
The rapacious greed of the fossil fuel industry will cause unimaginable harm to future generations, denying them many of the opportunities that our generation enjoys. The GOP puppets have no empathy and no moral compass. Future generations will regard them as the most destructive Congress in the history of the country. We can only hope that the voting public wakes up and votes in sufficient numbers to throw these gerrymandered puppets of greed out of office.
The Republican Party is demonstrating that it is totally controlled by the likes of the Kochs and other petroleum and coal interests. Climate change will cause terrible disruptions to future generations. There will be an increase in the frequency and intensity of severe weather events, mass migrations will occur as populations move from areas harmed by climate change to those that see an improvement in their climates. Political unrest caused by social and economic upheaval will threaten the national security of the US and many other nations.
Instead of taking a leadership role in the mitigation and adaptation of climate change, the United States, under the control of a troglodyte GOP Congress, has made itself the laughing stock of the world. Republicans like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) throw snowballs in the Senate and Fred Upton (R-MI), the House Energy Committee, now a leading climate change denier, received $20,000 from Koch employees.
The rapacious greed of the fossil fuel industry will cause unimaginable harm to future generations, denying them many of the opportunities that our generation enjoys. The GOP puppets have no empathy and no moral compass. Future generations will regard them as the most destructive Congress in the history of the country. We can only hope that the voting public wakes up and votes in sufficient numbers to throw these gerrymandered puppets of greed out of office.
14
I think there's a moral problem with people in NY and California living in expensive high-rise buildings, and driving energy inefficient cars, while telling people in West Virginia and Kentucky that they have to lose their jobs to protect the environment. This sounds like politics to me.
1
Dear Democrats,
Be sure to attach this as a rider to every "Repeal the ACA" bill. Heck, attach it to every bill!
Be sure to attach this as a rider to every "Repeal the ACA" bill. Heck, attach it to every bill!
1
Isn't this sort of, well exactly, like voting endlessly on defunding Obamacare in the House, isn't this exactly what the NYT and commenters venomously decry as wasting the taxpayers money when the Republicans do it? I just can't wait to see the comments start rolling in this morning that savage this Democrat stunt as a waste of taxpayer money (LOL, I won't hold my breath).
2
Political posturing, plain and simple. There was ample evidence of anthropogenic climate change, and a mandate to do something about it, when the democrats had the White House and control of both houses of Congress after the 2008 election. Instead of acting, they did nothing, and the administration revealed its hand by sabotaging two successive world climate change conferences. Now we are expected to believe that the democrats have got religion. Certainly, the 35% or so of the electorate who slavishly vote for these clowns will believe it, just as the 35% or so who deny it will think it to be a communist plot.
In the end, neither the democrats nor the republicans deserve to be in power as parties. A few individuals in each are worthy of the public trust, but only a fool would take these pronouncements at face value.
In the end, neither the democrats nor the republicans deserve to be in power as parties. A few individuals in each are worthy of the public trust, but only a fool would take these pronouncements at face value.
4
This is a good move by the Dem's to put the deniers on the right on the spot once again on this issue. Their excuses for doing nothing in the face of obvious and provable facts just keep getting thinner.
Senator Schumer is correct in noting that the Senate will go back to the Dem's next time as the sheer number of 'righties' seats in purple or blue states will almost certainly lead to their return to minority status after showing that they can't govern. This bill will allow for fast action in 17. Good on these guys!
Senator Schumer is correct in noting that the Senate will go back to the Dem's next time as the sheer number of 'righties' seats in purple or blue states will almost certainly lead to their return to minority status after showing that they can't govern. This bill will allow for fast action in 17. Good on these guys!
46
Hi Paul,
I am not 100% of all the inner workings of Congress, but, supposing the Democrats get back the Senate, won't the Republicans be able to block the proposal with their majority in the House (that they are likely to retain in 2016) ?
I am not 100% of all the inner workings of Congress, but, supposing the Democrats get back the Senate, won't the Republicans be able to block the proposal with their majority in the House (that they are likely to retain in 2016) ?
1
Fast action? The house is virtually certain to remain solidly in republican hands regardless of what happens in the presidential or senate races.
2
Good for the Dems, good for the country, and good in the long-run for the U.S. taking its' proper place in world leadership on global warming. It is a critical issue, whether GOP capitalists want to acknowledge it or not.
That being said, as a retiree from the auto industry, retiring at a time when the companies were shedding employees by the thousands due in part to higher productivity and automation, I really do feel for the coal miners. They are suffering in great part in the same way as manufacturing employees in that automation and robotization are rendering their old jobs an anachronism, and competition with other energy forms is hurting them. Climate change policies hasten the inevitable.
It would be better if Manchin and other coal state politicians would be more upfront with their constituents, and I include Mitch McConnell, too. False promises of a bright future for "clean coal" won't help these unfortunate workers, but finding a way, and money, to transition these workers is the ultimate answer. They need to start now, and their politicians need to provide the transition money now.
That being said, as a retiree from the auto industry, retiring at a time when the companies were shedding employees by the thousands due in part to higher productivity and automation, I really do feel for the coal miners. They are suffering in great part in the same way as manufacturing employees in that automation and robotization are rendering their old jobs an anachronism, and competition with other energy forms is hurting them. Climate change policies hasten the inevitable.
It would be better if Manchin and other coal state politicians would be more upfront with their constituents, and I include Mitch McConnell, too. False promises of a bright future for "clean coal" won't help these unfortunate workers, but finding a way, and money, to transition these workers is the ultimate answer. They need to start now, and their politicians need to provide the transition money now.
106
I doubt the welfare of impacted workers is actually a very big consideration for the fossil fuel energy protectors. It's much more about the money that will have to be left in the ground. Miners and everybody else closely dependent on this obsolete industry can and should be treated generously during the transition. It's a small fraction of the American workforce, and taking care of its members can be done for a fraction of the cost of keeping them in their current place.
8
@ Lamplighter: As a resident of the top coal producing state, Wyoming, I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, asking Wyoming Republicans to be honest about coal is like asking pigs to fly. Not only does Wyoming need to transition its coal workers to less damaging occupations, it also badly needs to diversify its economy away from energy. With the present Congressional representation, we have no chance of that.
1
What the coal miners need is enforcement and compensation. Coal mines have evaded, lied about, and ignored the law and the feeble attempts of the states and Federal authorities to make mining safe for miners and the environment. Serious investigation of all mines is in order. Serious investigation of harm to all miners must be made by the Justice Department in pursuit of criminal penalties of the principles and punitive damages for the miners and dependent survivors. Those profiting from global warming, environmental degradation, physical injury and health impairment of miners, their families and the communities directly afflicted by coal mining should be penalized to the point of collapse. What businesses, and their sycophant economists like to call "exertnalities" are dead bodies, the chronically ill, poisoned water and air, climate change, rising sea levels, drought, famine and war. They must stop and be forced to pay and be imprisoned where the injury was known, deliberate and persistent. The so called "corporate person" must learn what it means to be a citizen, responsible for it's actions, and subject to law or be terminated by having their corporate charter revoked, it's assets seized, and it's principles imprisoned.
4
The carbon tax would make a big difference, I don't know why the Democrats don't include it. Failing that, Congress should take money from the bloated military budget and invest in both clean energy and the people of the U.S.
47
It is a national travesty that we have min America the only organized political party on earth that denies Climate Change. The G.O.P. is the party of the past. Time for them to be put in the dustbin of history.
85
"It is a national travesty that we have min America the only organized political party on earth that denies Climate Change."
Can you show me where it is currently documented that the Republican party has an official position that there is not climate change.
You have to be specific about what is being denied because that makes a huge difference in its rationality.
I see three basic classes of denial:
1. NO climate change: Denial is that the climate changes.
2. There is climate change but NONE is due to man. (denial is nay man made component)
3. There is climate change, some is caused by man, but the man made portion is NOT catastrophic.
I expect you may be able to find an isolated statement that appears to be in class 1 or 2, and more that apply to 3.
Which of these are you accusing the Republican party as a whole of currently supporting and what is your source?
John
John
Can you show me where it is currently documented that the Republican party has an official position that there is not climate change.
You have to be specific about what is being denied because that makes a huge difference in its rationality.
I see three basic classes of denial:
1. NO climate change: Denial is that the climate changes.
2. There is climate change but NONE is due to man. (denial is nay man made component)
3. There is climate change, some is caused by man, but the man made portion is NOT catastrophic.
I expect you may be able to find an isolated statement that appears to be in class 1 or 2, and more that apply to 3.
Which of these are you accusing the Republican party as a whole of currently supporting and what is your source?
John
John
My sources are the NYT, WSJ, CNN, both Republican Debates and statements made by leading Republicans running for POTUS. Any well informed person is aware of the obstruction in Congress of anything related to addressing climate change. The article that is the subject of these comments states, "The bill has no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress."
It is interesting that any discussion of Climate Change includes Denier trolls. The first comment regarding the following interview with President Obama refers to him as the "White House monkey."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-takes-on-climate-change-...
It is interesting that any discussion of Climate Change includes Denier trolls. The first comment regarding the following interview with President Obama refers to him as the "White House monkey."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-takes-on-climate-change-...
A so far little-acknowledged Arctic Methane heat wave, combined with Global Warming, signals a worst case possibility of human extinction beginning in 5 to 15 years. See the website: aesopinstitute.org
Sustaining life on Earth requires reducing the burning of fossil fuels 100% within 5 years.
New Science (technology in development) can make that possible. "If we have carbon free electricity, the [climate] problem is solved". James Hansen
Carbon free electricity is under development. One technology employs, seemingly impossible, Fuel-Free Engines that will run 24/7 on Atmospheric Heat, a vast untapped source of solar energy larger than all the fossil fuels on Earth.
Another, if prototypes prove it practical, could employ equally unlikely solid-state magnetic generators, a 24/7 cost-competitive alternative to solar panels.
Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of $5.3 Trillion this year! (International Monetary Fund – Working Paper – WP/15/105 - May, 2015 – Page 30)
A 100% reduction in burning fossil fuels needs world-wide efforts on a 24/7 basis.
A 4 engine bomber was produced every 59 minutes 24/7 at Willow Run during WWII. Most thought THAT impossible before it happened. Breakthrough energy technologies are much simpler.
BOLD ACTION IS REQUIRED Check the facts. Lives you save may include your own - and those of everyone you care about.