Waxman Climate Bill

@bobmnu (8157)
United States
July 1, 2009 12:45am CST
Has anyone been able to read the new climatre change bill that passeD the House. I tried but was not able to understand most of it. I did manage to skim through about 164 pages and understood very little of it. What I did get out of it was 1. There is 4 Billion dollars to buy old Klunker Cars 2. They want to reduce the peak demand for electricity at a time when they want to switch to cleaner electricty. 3. Much of the bill states what they want to do and leaves it up to the EPA to set the rules and regulations. 4. It wants to cut Diesel carbon emmissions from 1.9 to 1.2 parts per million. They just cut it from 20 parts to 1.9 parts per million and now they want to cut more. 5. There is a provision to pay 80% of a person health insurance (up to $1500. per month) if they lose their job as a result of this bill for 156 months - 13 years. They will also pay $1500 in relocation expenses and $1500 per month job hunting expenses for 156 months.
2 responses
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
2 Jul 09
Below is a reprint of a July 1, 2009 Open Letter to Congress by a team of prominent atmospheric scientists. OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time. The facts are: The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them. The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST. The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science. DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken. Robert H. Austin Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow APS, AAAS American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow APS, AAAS Member National Academy of Sciences S. Fred Singer Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU Roger W. Cohen Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) Fellow APS Harold W. Lewis Professor of Physics Emeritus University of California at Santa Barbara Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study Laurence I. Gould Professor of Physics University of Hartford Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS Richard Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters Member National Academy of Sciences
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
2 Jul 09
It is too bad that Rep Waxman refused to allow the Republicans to call their witness as a rebuttal to VP Gore. The VP told Congress that he would not testify if they were going to allow the opposition to testify. So much for transparancy in the government.
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
1 Jul 09
"Much of the bill states what they want to do and leaves it up to the EPA to set the rules and regulations" BINGO! They set the gaol through congress, an elected body, then leave the regulations, methods and requirements to the EPA, an UNelected body. And all using a thousand plus page document to do what could have easily been 3 pages. It's another example of congress handing authoity to an entity that was never intended to have such great authority.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
2 Jul 09
It is a very nice trick to use. We pass the law but the EPA made it too strict. It not my fault it is the EPA. The main purpose of a regulatory agency is to make sure they are so busy that they need more help. They want to regulate enough to keep their job an=but so much that they have to really have to work.