Environmentalists' reactions
Most environmental groups welcomed the legislation's introduction. "It's the starting gun in the Senate in a race that you can't afford to lose," said David Moulton, a former House aide to Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) now working at the Wilderness Society.
But Greenpeace USA's climate director, Damon Moglen, questioned the bill's strength.
"While the language the Senate unveiled today contains some improvements over the House bill, it fails to commit the U.S. to meaningful, science-based greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to protect us from runaway climate change," Moglen said. "This proposal meets neither the needs of science nor those of the international community, which is currently negotiating the landmark climate treaty."
Senate sponsors insist that their emission targets, which are more aggressive than the 17 percent limit in the House bill, would be easier to meet because of the recent economic meltdown that has already led to lower emissions. Sanders, the Vermont senator, said during today's rally that he wants to strengthen the near-term emission targets.
The bill's emissions offset strategy also differs from the House-passed measure.
The Senate plan would states that three-fourths of the 2 billion tons of the annual offsets available to polluters would come from domestic projects and one-fourth from international efforts.
The House plan divided them evenly. An aide to Boxer said the higher domestic share in the Senate plan would help keep more investments in the United States.
Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add Commenttoo little, too late
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistoo little, too late
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHats off to the Senate for working on a very uncertain future threat while the real threat of insolvency in Social Security and Medicare remains untouched. I guess with cap and trade they can strut around bragging that they've really done something while all they will have done is put a huge hidden tax on our economy and forced more manufacturing overseas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am glad to see the climate bill moving forward. I also know that these two senators will do a great job. President Bush put that bill on the back burner for too long and the republicans have sit on their hands too long and it is not too little, too late. 20% is better than Bush's 0% and if they start flooding the market with electric cars, and start building geothermal power plants, and they can start doing that whenever they want, they can decreas greenhouse gases by 60 to 70% by 2020.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoccerdad: You are really "Joe The Plummer (Plunger) aren't you, and you just changed your name from Soccermom (Palin) to Soccerdad so people wouldn't know that you are really Vice-president Chaney? President Obama is not President Bush The Butcher and the only hidden tax is in your "Axes of Evil" mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissoccordad, I guess you want to continue to support Iran, Russia, oil dictators by giving them $1T next yr? You want to keep poisoning our fish so bad you can only eat them 1/wk to avoid mercury poisoning from coal.
You want to saddle our children with expensive fossil fuels when stable RE is less expensive and far cleaner?
This is not just about CO2, the same things need to be done for economic and national security. If we don't cut fossil fuel use, both will suffer badly.
I support coal. We have plenty of it. If we continue to utilize coal to the fullest extent possible, it will make your dreams of electric cars come true. RE will move us to more of a third world electrical reliability and high cost status and will be a detriment to getting off oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Soccerdad,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I support coal. "
Correction you blindly support coal, the evidence not with standing. You know those troublesome things like mercury pollution, mountain top removal and water contamination. You seem to believe that like a two year old reaching into the cookie jar that if you close your eyes tight enough no one else will see the evidence of misdeeds either.
In other words, your position is faith based and no amount of evidence or reason can convince you out of a position that you never reasoned into in the first place. Disagree with this assessment? Then please provide without snark or sarcasm what the evidence would look like that would convince you that human induced global warming is real.
,
All these problems, like most others in the environmentalism arena, are imagined or blown out of proportion. The sky is always falling, yet somehow never does. People are healthier than ever, except for the excesses of diet and other self inflicted problems. Every act of man affects the natural environment, but yet it survives. The earth is resilient. No one is dying from mercury pollution caused by combustion of coal. Even the much hyped release of the coal mine pond was not much of a problem. Provide some evidence that things are getting worse, beyond a few extra ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. You've just made up your mind that coal and oil are bad and there is not much thinking involved in that assessment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"All these problems, like most others in the environmentalism arena, are imagined or blown out of proportion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnsubstantiated assertion. I am sorry but your word is not gospel.
"The sky is always falling, yet somehow never does. "
Tired fable. I think is a damming indictment of your crowds imagination and intelligence that you use the same over used fables, similes and analogies and catch phrases over and over again. E.G
"Global warming is a religion."
"It is a scam"
"It is a hoax"
"Environazi"
"Green Fascist"
Could you try harder? It is like conversing with a bad Turing Test program.
"People are healthier than ever, except for the excesses of diet and other self inflicted problems."
Red Herring. Those advance are directly attributable to technological advances and government sponsored programs. You know like mandatory vaccines and water treatment.
"Every act of man affects the natural environment, but yet it survives."
Survival and thriving are two different things.
"The earth is resilient."
And human civilization?
No one is dying from mercury pollution caused by combustion of coal."
Who has claimed this? What I am claiming is that mercury pollution is bad for the health of a general population. You know like neurological disorders.
"Even the much hyped release of the coal mine pond was not much of a problem."
Oh, really? How very god like of you. When those people lost their homes, land and livelihood you claimed that those lost were trivial? Disgusting.
"Provide some evidence that things are getting worse, beyond a few extra ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere."
Here you go:
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=3008
Notice how I provided empirically based evidence on demand?
Now why is it you can not as much as do what I asked of you in the earlier post? Let me put it up for you again.
Then please provide without snark or sarcasm what the evidence would look like that would convince you that human induced global warming is real.
Can you do it? I have never yet gotten this demand met. Is it because your pseduoskepticism resembles an article of faith than a product of reason? I think so.
Forget coal. Welcome biocoal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgave derived biocoal can be produced for less than US$25 per tonne. Agave thrives on semiarid marginal land (SW USA), yielding up to 500 tonnes of biomass per hectare per year, containing 3X more sugars than sugarcane, 4X more cellulose than fast-growing eucalyptus and 5X more dry bone biomass than GMO poplar tree.
Agave needs no watering, nor agrochemicals; thrives on saline and acidic soils; is very prolific, reliable and easy to cultivate.
Agave can be cultivated in 2/3 of the Earth's habitable land. The cost of production per tonne of biomass is less than ten US dollars.
Agave will play an important role in the bioeconomy of the XXI Century
Regards,
Arturo
agaveproject2@gmail.com
Soccerdad:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see that Trent1492 has returned from his latest spate of self-flagellation and is still spewing his rhetoric and riding his fierce thesaurus into battle. Best to ignore him.
$40+ TRILLION is what America has buried underground. The ecopoliticians don't want us to use it. Without it, our economy will collapse, we will not be energy independent, our foreign policy will force us to stay engaged in the Middle East and we'll be held hostage by every 2 bit dictator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlmost all renewable energy is MORE expensive. Wind is more expensive, inconsistent and difficult to control on the grid. Solar is getting better but the efficiency numbers you see on the reports drops quickly over time, and environmentalists want to block some of them now because of the shade they create. Environmentalists are forcing us to tear down some hydroelectric dams. Off shore wave and wind are considered eyesores and bird risks by environmentalists. Ecopoliticians have blocked our mining of the 17 rare earth metals necessary for components of many alternative energy devices (formable permanent magnets, advanced displays, high volume data storage, lasers, etc.). China now has a near monopoly on them and will not export any after 2012, so now we are held hostage to another cartel.
It is critical to vote out these tyrants starting in 2010.