What's Your Opinion On the Climate-Change Bill?

@anniepa (27240)
United States
June 6, 2008 6:43pm CST
Senate Republicans managed to "kill" the climate-change bill, at least for now, which I personally think is a shame. I'm sure this bill is no different from any other in that the "devil is in the details" but from what you know about it, what's your opinion? Here's what it is and how it works, as well as a few of who's for it and against it: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/01/MNEF111GNL.DTL Please, unless you're sure you know everything there is to know about this bill, take a look then tell me just what is wrong with it? Annie
3 people like this
5 responses
@kenzie45230 (3560)
• United States
7 Jun 08
I'm glad it didn't pass. Scientists cannot even agree if there is such a thing as global warming, and if there is what the causes might be. Until there is some kind of consensus, I think politicians have no business getting involved. People think our weather is warmer (and colder) than ever, but that's not true. Every single day, our local news gives the high (or low) temperatures and the record highs were always in the 30s and 40s (and the record lows as well in that same decade). Yes, there was record warming and ice melting in 2007. But did you know that in November 2007, there was also record refreezing? 58,000 square miles formed per day in ten days last November. Carbon dioxide is only responsible for 5% of greenhouse effect and humans are only responsible for 3% of carbon dioxide emmisions. Knowing those facts, do we really want the government coming up with ways to make it harder for businesses to stay here in the US? Or do we really want to force them to take their business to foreign countries?
2 people like this
• United States
7 Jun 08
That's the 1930s and 1940s in case I didn't make that clear.
@anniepa (27240)
• United States
7 Jun 08
For one thing, businesses are already leaving the US with our government's blessing, aren't they? Also, as you said, scientists can't agree on on global warming's existence or causes but shouldn't be err on the side of caution without going berserk about it? I can say from my own memories and experiences as well as from stories I've heard from my mom and other people a lot older than me, our weather has changed, we're having natural disasters like never before and in places they never happened before. Don't you think that's cause for even a little bit of concern? Annie
1 person likes this
• United States
7 Jun 08
Sure be concerned. But we can't be like chicken little - the sky is falling, the sky is falling. When most scientists are saying that the sun is the cause of what warming and climate change there might be, why are we trying to blame big business?
1 person likes this
@beamer23 (92)
• United States
7 Jun 08
I haven't the time to read the bill. I listened to Fox news and Oh my god, Rush Limbaugh. I was praying so hard for this bill no to pass. I absolutely think that it would have done tremendous harm to California, where I live, in particular. That and Texas would have gotten hit especially hard. But I think it could have well been on the way to do what the terrorists were not able to do and that is to destroy America, but from within. It was going to penalize industry and manufacturing something fierce. It was going to allow for gas prices to rise dramatically and that wiould have just killed so many things, like low prices for produce number 1. (As it is, crude oil shot up over 10.00 dollars US today) Thank god some one was paying attention and voted this absolute mess out of the picture. How can you possibly think it was a shame it was defeated? Beamer23
@anniepa (27240)
• United States
7 Jun 08
You based your opinion on this bill on what you heard on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? If you read some real facts about it, let me know. Annie
• United States
7 Jun 08
Ok, I apologize. I didn't realize that I was actually reading from the great and mighty San Francisco Chronicle. How silly of me, it isn't a third rate rag. It's a second rate rag. Beamer23
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
7 Jun 08
What is a shame is your party wanting to destory this country for a farce. This bill would destory the economy, by running of all of the manufacturing job. Nothing like spending more money on everything just because you believe America is responsible for global warming. I hate to tell you this, but there is this thing that float up in the sky that heats the Earth, the Sun. How exactly does cap and trade stop the sun from heating the earth? Trust me I know about cap and trade, I do not think you do. Annie I will make you a deal, I promise I will support cap and trade if you can show me how this would be good for our economy. Show me how paying more for electricity is a good thing. Coal is the cheapest form of fuel to electricity. Any other form would make yours and my electricity bill go up. Everything is produced using electricity. If electricity goes up so will everything else will go up in price. Does China use cap and trade? Does India use cap and trade? Does Mexico use cap and trade? The answer is a big fat no! You and your ilk will force every manufacturer out of this country and go to China. Why, it will have nothing to do with labor, it will have everything to do with the price of producing good in this country. If you can produce good in another country cheaper you will do it.
2 people like this
• United States
7 Jun 08
I was quite amazed when I first heard about this bill and I was so relieved to hear it got shot down in flames. I was really hoping that some one would have the kahunas to face this thing down, and thank God they did. Beamer23
2 people like this
• United States
7 Jun 08
Amen! The "science" of Al Gore is "junk science." He's not a scientist himself. He wasn't even a good politician. But, boy, did he find a way to make money.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Jun 08
Annie, Shame on you! You provide this tripe as condoned analysis of the most eggregious 'big brother' action against the U.S Taxpayer EVER in the history of our great nation? This "Readers Digest" condensed, flowery drivel is what you have used to formulate your basis of understanding of this freedom-stripping legislation? Annie the bill is approximately 500 pages long. So long that I could not commit the time, in three sessions, to fully absorb it. Criminies, I'm only nearing page 100. Yet, you present a couple-hundred word analysis, by one of the hometown newspapers of Sen. Barbara Boxer as a potential endorsement for this wholly anti-taxpayer legislation. And, you add commentary indicating that the names of the supporters and detractors should be enough for us (stupid taxpayers) to decide. This time I truly am chiding your post content. I cannot believe that you, who has claimed to be a watchdog of intrusive government would try to pass this off as thoughtful analysis. I expected better from you! If you wish to seriously discuss Lieberman-Warner, then let us begin with a basic analysis, minus the flowery primises and glaring omissions, then we can get down to the nitty-gritty. In the following analysis of just the pre-release of the bill (bearing in mind that I'm only 1/5th of the way through reading the actual bill), I will highlight the areas of greatest concern. If, after analyzing the following summary, you still lean toward supporting this measure because of the names attached as supporter of it, then I'm more than open to more thoroughly discussing the specific problems with this proposed legislation. Mind you, I am refraining from really hammering home the factual point that only four(4) scientists signed on to the IAEA report which got this whole Global Warming nonsense started. And, that (as of three weeks ago) more than 30,000 scientists in the USA alone, have warned that taking specific measures to reduce the current 0.004% (less than 1/2 of 1%) CO2 in the atmosphere will likely negatively impact global food availability. So, I am denying the concerns of bona-fide scientists by even engaging this 'bait and switch' legislative debacle! Against my better judgement, here we go: ___________________________________________________________ Lieberman-Warner summary: "Cap “The bill will specify an annual aggregate tonnage cap, expressed in terms of Co2 equivalence, for each year from 2012 through 2050. The cap that the bill will specify for 2012 will be the 2005 emissions level.” And: 10% below 2005 by 2020, 30% by 2030, 50% by 2030, 70% by 2050. Allowances Each year 20% of that year’s National Emission Allowance Account for free to covered entities within the industry sector. In 2012 20% of the NEAA will be allocated to the electric power sector. A portion of that 20% will be free to new entrants to the electric power sector. The allocation will be at 20% from 2012 – 2017, then transition to 0% by 2035. 10% will be allocated to load-serving entities to defray energy-cost impacts on low- and middle-income consumers and to promote demand-side energy efficency, some of it for free to rural electric cooperative facilities. 8% will be allocated to covered entities who have taken pre-enactment action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That 8% will transition to 0% by 2020. Each year 4% will be allocated to state governments, half based on population, half on historical state emissions. Each year 4% will be allocated to US coal mines. Each year 7.5% will be allocated to farmers, foresters, and other landowners to store carbon in soils, crops, and forests. Each year 2.5% will be allocated to the transportation sector. Allowances for Auction [b]24% in 2012 will go to auction under the aegis of the Climate Change Credit Corporation; rising to 52% by 2035. Auction Proceeds[/b] 20% for a public-private partnership for power-sector technologies including CCS 20% for public-private partnership for CCS 20% for transportation sector technologies and reducing miles traveled 10% for environmental mitigation 10% for SO2, NOx, mercury emission reduction from coal plants 10% to state and local for low-income community mitigation 10% for international mitigation CCS CCS regulations and a legal framework for the Federal assumption of liability for geological storage will be proposed by a study group within two years of enactment. Carbon Market Efficiency Board, Banking Up to 15% of the allowances a covered entity must submit may be comprised of borrowed allowances, with an interest rate set by the Board. Up to 15% of the allowances that a covered entity must submit may be comprised of offset credits. Up to 15% of the allowances that a covered entity must submit may be comprised of allowances purchased on a certified foreign greenhouse gas emissions trading market. the Board may increase the number of emissions credits if the average daily closing price of an emissions credit exceeds the upper end of the range predicted by the CBO prior to the start of the program. The Board may adjust the terms and interest rates of the emissions loans “as needed to avoid significant harm to the economy” and “in the event of more extreme economic circumstances” to raise the cap temporarily provided that subsequent year’s caps are tightened so that cumulative reductions are unchanged. Offsets “The bill will set forth detailed, rigorous requirements for offsets, with the purpose of ensuring that they will represent real, additional, verifiable, and permanent emissions reductions.” Foreign Tariffs The President will be authorized to require that importers of GHG-intensive products submit emissions allowances of a value equivalent to that of the allowances that the US system effectively requires of domestic manufacturers, if it is determined that nation has not taken commensurate action to reduce GHG emissions." http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/08/02/lieberman-warner-plan-unveiled http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Economy-wide%20bills%20110th%20Senate%20-%20August%202_0.pdf
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Jun 08
Addendum: I believe it relevant to provide the legal defintion of "mitigate", so that certain of the proposed measures may be fully understood, from a legal perspective. "MITIGATE DAMAGES - Taking action to avoid or reduce damages. A person who claims damages as a result of an alleged wrongful act on the part of another has a duty under the law to "mitigate" those damages; that is, to take advantage of any reasonable opportunity he may have had under the circumstances to reduce or minimize the loss or damage. So, if a Plaintiff [within the limitations of any disability he may have sustained] fails to seek out or take advantage of a business or employment opportunity that was reasonably available to him under all the circumstances, then the amount of damages awarded may be reduced by the amount he could have reasonably realized if he had taken advantage of such opportunity." So, the bill has a built-in measure to protect the government and lawmakers from bankrupting small, medium, and large American businesses. This is also a built-in financial gain for none other than members of the American Bar Association!!! Does anyone have a 'sleazy lawyer' joke or comment to add???
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27240)
• United States
7 Jun 08
I provided a summary because that's all anyone here would take the time to read, in fact the conservatives here won't read anything I post to begin with. If you have the time to read through hundreds of pages of a bill so you can point out stupidity, fine. I must say the fact that Lieberman's was attached did give me pause. Like with anything else, there certainly will be changes made to the bill when it comes up for vote again, which it surely will. I love how it's fine to pay billions of dollars per week fighting an immoral war, we're not supposed to blame the oil companies or any other corporations for anything, we're supposed to just pay the high prices and suffer in silence but God forbid if there's a mention of one penny being spent to save our planet all he11 breaks loose! What do you suggest is done about the environment? Just continue to say it's not our fault and there's nothing we can do about it because it's just heat from the sun? I have two grandchildren so I'd like to think the world will still be here for them to someday have their own families. Annie
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
7 Jun 08
Annie, What she is trying to get through to you is that this bill would do far more harm than good!
2 people like this
@mommyboo (13198)
• United States
7 Jun 08
I barely skimmed the info in the link, but I tend to be against any new bill or ongoing clash that is going to end up costing SOMEBODY big bucks. The problem with anything like this first of all is that I live in California. California has extra hands in the pot here anyway, from environmentalists to air quality, and it filters down and adds to our cost of living. Nobody can afford the way the economy is right now, there is definitely no reason to add to the problem by making ANYTHING cost more or forcing people to replace anything. Everything is so over-administrated, you have to pay extra for everything, fill out paperwork, get permits, licenses, and what have you to do ANYTHING. It seems like the end is coming, I cannot believe we have done this to ourselves. It is time to get back to basics, just live and enjoy life, and stop trying to get all over other people for living.
1 person likes this