Posted on 01/16/2010 1:48:51 PM PST by neverdem
Democrats in Congress have a lot to juggle in the year ahead. If they want to avoid a slaughter at the polls, they’ll need to boost job growth. Not only that, but Wall Street remains poorly regulated, and key allies are growing impatient for labor-law and immigration reform. So it’s hardly a shock to hear that some Dems would prefer to set aside tackling climate change--especially so soon after a grueling health care fight. “We need to deal with the phenomena of global warming,” Indiana Senator Evan Bayh recently groused, “but I think it’s very difficult in the economic circumstances we have right now.”
Difficult, but maybe less so than Bayh thinks. The House has already passed its own climate bill, complete with a cap on heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and, in the Senate, Democrats have begun to get some welcome support from the other side of the aisle. Susan Collins is co-sponsoring a cap-and-dividend bill, which would essentially tax carbon dioxide at the source and refund most of the proceeds to households, while a few Republicans (like Lisa Murkowski) had positive things to say about last month’s Copenhagen accord, which put key developing countries on a path to curtailing their own emissions. Interestingly, one of the most forceful advocates for a Senate climate bill in recent weeks has been Republican Lindsey Graham. “All the cars and trucks and plants that have been in existence since the Industrial Revolution, spewing out carbon day-in and day-out, you’ll never convince me that’s a good thing for your children and the future of the planet,” he told a crowd in South Carolina, the day after being censured by Charleston County’s GOP for working with Democrats on the issue. “Whatever political pushback I get,” he added, “I’m willing to accept, because I know what I’m trying to do makes sense to me.” Lately, he’s been huddling with John Kerry and Joe Lieberman on a “tripartisan” bill to reduce emissions.
Some have argued that Congress would be crazy to take on an issue as divisive as climate change in an election year, but the Senate, with only one-third of its members up for reelection, is less susceptible to that calculus than the House. And election-year timidity may be more an invention of pundits than historical fact. After all, welfare reform passed in the summer of 1996, while the most recent Clean Air Act amendments--including a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide-passed the Senate in 1990. Besides, most senators realize that, if they don’t act soon, the Environmental Protection Agency will start regulating carbon-dioxide emissions on its own, cutting Congress out of the process entirely.
Of course, the Senate should act to curb greenhouse gases not to avoid being trumped by the EPA, but to avert an ecological catastrophe that will affect the lives of millions. In the United States, as Bayh’s hesitation shows, much of the debate around climate policy has focused on whether we can shift to cleaner forms of energy without harming the economy in any way. Green groups have taken pains to cite stat-heavy reports from the Congressional Budget Office showing that a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions would have a minimal impact on family budgets and little effect on economic growth. But there’s a large ethical aspect to climate change, too. Hundreds of millions of people in places like Bangladesh and sub-Saharan Africa are set to suffer from the storms, floods, and crop failures that a hotter planet will bring. And future generations of Americans will have to contend with unstable weather patterns, water shortages, and rising sea levels if we don’t get our emissions under control.
On both scientific and political grounds, time is of the essence. Every year we put off curbing emissions is another year more carbon accumulates in the air, deepening the risks of disaster and making eventual action more difficult. A delay could also shatter the fragile progress made on global emissions over the past few months--both China and India have pledged to rein in their carbon pollution, but they could easily backslide if we do. Worst of all, Democrats are likely to lose at least a few seats in November--and with them, their chances of overcoming a GOP filibuster--so this may be their last chance for some time to set limits on greenhouse gases.
Recently, some senators have talked about breaking up the House bill and passing only the most popular portions, such as the mandate for electric utilities to buy renewable power, or loans for green technology. But those items can’t substitute for a carbon-pricing regime, whether a cap or a tax, that will shift companies away from dirty energy. And splitting off the easy items now could make it more difficult to attract votes for emission limits down the road. The White House seems to recognize this and has so far committed to a major push on carbon-capping legislation in the spring. The bill that emerges won’t be perfect, but its timing may never get better.
Did you take the cannoli?
Who approved this crap?
Aren’t the editors at Free Republic aware Global Warming is a hoax?
See comment# 1. Do you always write comments before you read what the poster has possibly written? You got a hint with my subtitle, (These rats are suicidal!)
The New Republic is one of the house organs of the left. Should we remain oblivious when they think out loud?
The DimoCrats are a Cult of Death, all suffering from DCVE (Death Camp Victim Envy) If they can’t run the slave camps they want to be able to “prove” what good and innocent victims they are”, by becoming one of it’s mass graves statistics.
Hey Democraps...How much money are you going to throw at Global warming? Well then...Print it and throw it. Print it and throw it. Print it and throw it. Tear down another forest and then print it and throw it. We’ll be right here. What a bunch of a$$clowns....
What a contest, Rummeycare vs. Obumblecare!
Glad I don’t live in Messachuchits!
Follow it up with an Icewater Enema to celebrate global warming.......
Huh?
Doesn’t South Carolina have recall”
Why doesnt this RINO MAXIMUS just pull a Spector
OOPS! A Thousand Pardons!
Never mind. Friendly fire incident. Sorry.
The Dems are lucky gas isn't over three bucks a gallon as it soon may well be. Once it gets over that mark, John Q. Public will start complaining again about gas prices and evil oil companies. Obama will naturally make the wrong move and establish price controls which will lead to rationing. That should kill whatever slim chances he has of getting re-elected.
Huh? (I’m busy pulling my foot out of my mouth)
MCCain is for it so is Grahm, Collins,Snowe forget it
Sorry, but you can’t fix “stupid”. Murkowski has swallowed a bill of goods, and reality seems of no importance to her. Suicidal imbecility.
According to Richard Tol at http://umbrellog.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?p=95688 the following “Summary for Policy Makers is very selective, up to the point of twisting the chapters’ findings beyond recognition. In case of SAR WG3 Chapter 6, this was done against the will of the authors. The IPCC has learned from that. The selection process for authors is now more careful (awkward people like myself are not welcome) and there is self-selection too (David Pearce withdrew).” Richard Tol
CLIMATE POLICY—FROM RIO TO KYOTO
A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond
http://media.hoover.org/documents/epp_102b.pdf
(In particular refer to page 19/20: ‘Politics Enters into Drafting the IPCC Report.’ Here examples are given of ‘substantial changes ... made between the time when the report was approved in Madrid and the time it was printed.The convening lead author, Ben Santer, readily admitted to making these changes.)
Check out the work of Miskolczi and Zagoni. They have, mostly the former researcher, described the thermodynamics of CO2 and the atmosphere.
Basically water vapor runs the show and accommodates CO2 as it rises and falls. Water vapor rises, carries heat upwards, condensation releases the heat at altitude to be lost to space, and the resulting clouds also prevent more energy from entering. This massive, global heat engine and negative feedback system acts so well that our climate is ridiculously stable as long as our orbit, axis of rotation, or the solar output do not change.
So, regardless of the fudging of the temperature data (which is illegal as it was intended to defraud, as it was intended to be used for major policy decisions), the simple fact is that CO2 cannot drive the climate. This is now well-described science which does not need a ridiculously expensive climate computer model to describe or understand.
Yeah, with Climategate it really is suicidal. No one is going to want their electricity bills skyrocket for no reason and Climategate proved their entire reasoning is fraudulent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.