Global Warming: the Thread

[SuperJerk 0]

U.S. Senate global warming bill blocked

Story Highlights

Senate bill on global warming would require big reductions in greenhouse gases

 

Debate focuses on the expected economic costs of putting a price on carbon dioxide

 

Both Sens. Obama and McCain have called for capping carbon dioxide

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Republicans blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases Friday, pushing debate over the world's biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president.

 

Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote, prompting Majority Leader Harry Reid to pull the legislation from consideration.

 

The Senate debate focused on bitter disagreement over the expected economic costs of putting a price on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas that comes from burning fossil fuels.

 

Opponents said it would lead to higher energy costs.

 

The 48-36 vote fell short of a majority, but Democrats produced letters from six senators -- including presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain -- saying they would have voted for the measure had they been there.

 

"It's just the beginning for us," proclaimed Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, a chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate, noting that 54 senators had expressed support of the legislation, although that's still short of what would be needed to overcome concerted GOP opposition.Watch more on the global warming debate »

 

"It's clear a majority of Congress wants to act," Boxer said.

 

She and other Democrats said this lays the groundwork for action on climate change next year with a new Congress and a new president who will be more hospitable to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions.

 

Both Obama and McCain have called for capping carbon dioxide and other emissions linked to climate change. President Bush has opposed such measures and said he would have vetoed the Senate bill if he had received it.

 

The bill would have capped carbon dioxide coming from power plants, refineries and factories, with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century.

 

"It's a huge tax increase," argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal."

 

Supporters of the bill accused Republicans of muddying the water with misinformation.

 

"There is no tax increase," Boxer said. She said the emissions trading system would provide tax relief to help people pay energy prices. And supporters disputed that it would substantially increase gasoline prices.

 

Four Democrats joined most Republicans in essentially killing the bill.

 

Obama and McCain, as well as Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, who is recovering from cancer surgery, were absent, although they each sent a letter supporting the bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/sen...e.ap/index.html

 

Politics aside, how necessary is this?

 

[At Home 0]

Blah blah my stuff.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

It got blocked this time..but just wait a year. Energy companies wouldnt have spent tons of money on lobbyists to get in on the action now if they weren't sure it was going to pass in the near future since they stand to make a lot of money off it.

 

"There is no tax increase," Boxer said. She said the emissions trading system would provide tax relief to help people pay energy prices. And supporters disputed that it would substantially increase gasoline prices.

 

The EPA has already said that it would raise gas prices by a minimum of $1.50 a gallon, but hey, its the EPA so maybe they're wrong. Lets all believe the democrats when they say it wont raise gas prices, since they were so right about having a plan back in 2006 to win midterm elections lower gas prices at a time when they were in the $2.50 range...I mean we're paying $1.50 a gallon now right?..oh wait..

 

Cap and Trade has nothing to do with global warming anymore anyway, its just a way to fund government spending and mostly any new healthcare programs that come down the pike.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm not sure why you think energy companies stand to make money off of this bill.

 

And bringing up an unfulfilled promise from 2006 is a red herring, though.

[snuffbox 0]

Isn't that the only 'weapon' in the Glen Beck arsenal, though?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I'm not sure why you think energy companies stand to make money off of this bill.

 

And bringing up an unfulfilled promise from 2006 is a red herring, though.

 

The carbon credits can be bought and sold on the market.

 

Article

 

The Independent reported this week that the U.K.’s biggest polluters would reap over £6 billion in windfall profits from the EU ETS, the European emissions trading system set up under the Kyoto Protocol. This is up from the £1 billion predicted by BBC News in May 2006. In other words, the companies that pollute the most are making billions off of the system designed to reduce their emissions.

 

Not only do the companies get to raise their rates to offset the cost of Cap and Trade, but they can also sell their credits at a profit as well. Of course, everyone in Washington is saying "we're gonna do this the right way, not like how Europe did it" but do you really believe that? Europe gave away most of the carbon credits to companies for free. The Energy companies were lobbying congress to give at least 50% away for free, with the others being auctioned off. Larger companies can probably buy more of those auctioned credits cheaply and then sell them to smaller companies who go over the carbon cap for a large profit.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm not sure why you think energy companies stand to make money off of this bill.

 

And bringing up an unfulfilled promise from 2006 is a red herring, though.

 

The carbon credits can be bought and sold on the market.

 

Article

 

The Independent reported this week that the U.K.’s biggest polluters would reap over £6 billion in windfall profits from the EU ETS, the European emissions trading system set up under the Kyoto Protocol. This is up from the £1 billion predicted by BBC News in May 2006. In other words, the companies that pollute the most are making billions off of the system designed to reduce their emissions.

 

Not only do the companies get to raise their rates to offset the cost of Cap and Trade, but they can also sell their credits at a profit as well. Of course, everyone in Washington is saying "we're gonna do this the right way, not like how Europe did it" but do you really believe that? Europe gave away most of the carbon credits to companies for free. The Energy companies were lobbying congress to give at least 50% away for free, with the others being auctioned off. Larger companies can probably buy more of those auctioned credits cheaply and then sell them to smaller companies who go over the carbon cap for a large profit.

 

So...if they make money off of carbon trading, they'll raise prices? I'm don't follow that reasoning.

 

Also, since when are Republicans worried corporate profits are too high? That's why this sounds like propaganda to me.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

So...if they make money off of carbon trading, they'll raise prices? I'm don't follow that reasoning.

 

Also, since when are Republicans worried corporate profits are too high? That's why this sounds like propaganda to me.

Its not like they'll raise prices without reason. "Our costs have risen, we had to raise rates" will be the standard line. the fact that democrats are having to promise rebates to low income consumers to ease the increased cost of energy is proof enough for me that energy costs will go up. I dont know what good a rebate is going to do for someone who can afford to fillup their car to go to work though.

 

If theres any question that energy companies want cap and trade, the fact that Enron was one of the major supporters of it and the kyoto treaty back in 1997 should settle that, since it would have made them tons of money at the time.

 

Also, I know that I agree with Glenn Beck in that this whole "we have do something to stop global warming" disguise of a program thats main purpose is to raise money for government spending and putting the cost of that program squarely on the back of every american with a regressive tax that will hurt the average american hardest through higher energy costs and icreased gas costs. /

[SuperJerk 0]

So I guess you'd just prefer an across the board cap on emissions, right, instead of using market-based economics to give companies a profit motive to cap them? No, wait, you want no regulation at all, I bet! Like I said, whenever Republicans oppose something because it'd "help big corporations," I doubt the purity of their motives.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

So I guess you'd just prefer an across the board cap on emissions, right, instead of using market-based economics to give companies a profit motive to cap them? No, wait, you want no regulation at all, I bet! Like I said, whenever Republicans oppose something because it'd "help big corporations," I doubt the purity of their motives.

 

We dont need any regulation on carbon emissions..

 

I saw this article today..technology that can turn your own car's emissions into fuel using algae. Theres no money for the government in solutions the "problem" like that though. They could stick this units on coal burning plants to make fuel for cars here. No drilling for oil, no harming moose and no harmful emissions...oh wait..WERE ENSLAVING ALGAE!! Thats obviously the stance environmentalists/plant rights activists will take on this to keep it from happening.

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

We dont need any regulation on carbon emissions..

 

Wow.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

We dont need any regulation on carbon emissions..

 

Wow.

 

that had better be sarcasm since my "global warming is pretty much a hoax" stance is known on here.

[EricMM 0]

Blah, blah, my stuff.

 

Politics aside, how necessary is this?

What "this" are you talking about?

 

Cap and trade is more palatable than outright regulation. It's probably more effective, actually, assuming there are good rules in place. And auctioning off carbon credits is WAAAAAAAAAAAY better than merely handing a set number of carbon credits out, giving the most to the largest polluters. Which would be like giving them money because they pollute. Which we've been doing for so long already.

[Guest Epic Narcissism]

There was an episode of Home Improvement about carbon credits. I think Randy was against them. I don't remember. This was years ago.

[BUTT 0]

The girl who played Randy's girlfriend was really hot on Boston Public.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Didn't we already have this thread a couple months ago?

[SuperJerk 0]

Didn't we already have this thread a couple months ago?

No, I checked first...we had some discussion of global warming during the gas price thread.

[At Home 0]

So I guess you'd just prefer an across the board cap on emissions, right, instead of using market-based economics to give companies a profit motive to cap them? No, wait, you want no regulation at all, I bet! Like I said, whenever Republicans oppose something because it'd "help big corporations," I doubt the purity of their motives.

 

And hence the reason that Al Gore is not our 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee.

[EricMM 0]

he don't want it.

[At Home 0]

Right, that's it.

[Jingus 0]

Wouldn't it be because, y'know, he already ran and lost? Yeah I know it was more "lost" than lost, but still, I can't recall the last time the same candidate ran for President twice (not counting 3rd party candidates). I guess Nixon is the most recent example I can come up with. These days, if you blow your one big shot, they don't let you try again.

[EricMM 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...hpid=sec-nation

[NoCalMike 0]

I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives scoff at the scientific community findings on global warming when it predicts outcomes that doesn't fit their agenda, yet then they turn around and say things like "1,000 scientists sign-on to global warming is a hoax memo" as if scientists are NOW TO BE BELIEVED, but only those select few.

[Guest !!!]

I can't recall the last time the same candidate ran for President twice (not counting 3rd party candidates).

Adlai Stevenson

[SuperJerk 0]

I can't recall the last time the same candidate ran for President twice (not counting 3rd party candidates).

Adlai Stevenson

 

Anymore, they usually don't even let you be the nominee if you've been the loosing VP on a ticket.

 

Look at Edwards, Lieberman, Quayle (had so much trouble raising money he dropped out before his official declaration), Dole in 1980, and Ed Muskie. Mondale barely did it, and it took Bob Dole 20 years to recover from that. And both of those guys got trounced in the general election.

 

 

[At Home 0]

Al Gore would've slam dunk had the nomination, and probably the election too. He won a goddamned Nobel Peace Prize. Moveon.org said they had barrels of money waiting for his campaign. Democrats were literally begging him to run. Al Gore would've done more for his agenda as president, not as a power point presenter, I can't believe anyone would possibly think otherwise on that.

 

2 and 2 together guys.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Al Gore wouldnt run for President cause he's making too much money off his global warming hoax to take the job.

 

 

 

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Al Gore wouldnt run for President cause he's making too much money off his global warming hoax to take the job.

 

Yeah, because an influential, famous former Senator and Vice President (and heir to a Tennessee political dynasty) has to concoct an evil, elaborate environmental crisis charade to make money. He couldn't serve on corporate boards or charge fees to speak at events and rake in boatloads of cash, nosiree bob.

[Jingus 0]

Dude, I don't even believe in the classic theory of Global Warming, but the "global warming is a hoax to get money" conspiracy plot is just bullshit.

[At Home 0]

Even though his investment firm now holds a 9.5% share in Camco Int., which has one of the world's largest carbon credit portfolios?