Monday, June 29, 2009
House Passes the Climate Bill
But the bill, which includes caps on carbon dioxide emissions, is still far from becoming law.
The massive energy bill that would set a cap on carbon dioxide emissions and provide other incentives and requirements for clean energy has passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a slim margin.
It's far from becoming law, though. Passing the bill in the Senate will be more difficult: many Democrats voted against the bill in the House, something that can't happen in the Senate if it is to pass. What's more, President Obama isn't entirely happy with the bill and will be pushing to get some changes made, including removing a provision designed to encourage other countries to set up emissions goals of their own, according to the Washington Post.
Some experts hope that the bill's passage in the House will prove a strong bargaining chip later this year when world leaders meet to discuss international caps on emissions.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
If the President and Congress were serious about energy independence and the over-hyped global warming problem, they'd push nuclear. But they're not. This bill is a payoff to the environmental lobby that has railed against the traditional energy industry for decades; and guess who's paying the bill - you are.
kstauff
06/29/2009
Posts:114
I guess its that time of the century that we look past the current economical setback that we're facing and look at a more pressing matter at hand, that being the emissions we're generating. Since we're not forced to reduce our usage, its only fair for the policy makers to put a price on our carbon footprint. And its also only fair that we reciprocate by being more aware.
lookenneth
06/30/2009
Posts:1
The American Clean Energy and Security Act represents one of the largest taxes ever enacted on American consumers. Very little of its cost will be borne by oil, gas and coal companies. As you rightly acknowledge, it will be borne by consumers through their use of energy.
The real question is whether it's necessary to begin with. I would argue that it is FAR too early to make that determination, especially as global temperatures have been declining over the last 11 years now, despite a net increase in man-made CO2 levels. These two facts directly contradict the theory upon which this legislation is largely based. That screams dishonesty; but what else is new...it's Washington. And you're buying it.
kstauff
06/30/2009
Posts:114
1. Climates constantly change, so by what rationale does anyone suggest that we should attempt to stabelize them?
2. With all the noise about how we need to reduce atmospheric CO2 why do we never hear what we're supposed to reduce it to? Some expert please tell me what our target is, and what we stand to gain by achieving it. No trillion dollar generalities, please. Be specific.
Our federal gov't pretty much destroys everything it touches. The ecconomy, education, and healthcare being cases in point. By what leap of faith am I too assume they'll accomplish anything concerning climate change?
The U.S. has lost its competetive edge in the world ecconomy, and it's getting worse. I say let's leave cap and trade in the capable hands of the Chinese. Then, when their ecconomy is being dragged backward, we'll be able to catch up.
Cincywood2
07/06/2009
Posts:2