Opponents of Waxman-Markey

[PassedOut]

Again I have no idea if this is a good bill or a real stinker.

During the "debate" I did not observe the republicans saying that this is serious problem and we have a great plan to solve it. Instead they played political games and tried to kick the can down the road. That won't fly.

 

I'm sure this bill is far from perfect. So was the stimulus bill. And so will be the health care bill.

 

An important point is that the US government is no longer abdicating responsibility for solving problems that belong in the government's realm.

 

Social security had to be fixed before and needs to be fixed again. Same with Medicare. These new initiatives will need to be fixed too, but they won't go away. That's important.

[hrothgar]

do you?... it's pretty much always been your way to attack the person rather than to engage in "honest discourse"... btw, what crap are you speaking of?

I will readily admit that there are certain individuals that I attack and you are most certainly on said list.

 

I have very little tolerance for idiots; much less ones who knowingly post false information trying to pollute threads. Feel free to claim that your "just providing a skeptical view". Your actions speak for themselves. You constantly parrot right wing talking points.

 

Different people respond in different ways. A number of individuals on these forums simple choose to ignore your postings because they think your incapable of engaging in real conversation.

 

I'm a bit more rude (and I think that its a mistake to ignore your ilk)

[mike777]

I note earlier threads which seem to agree that a carbon tax that was revenue neutral was a good first step forward. Perhaps with some version of a nuclear component?

 

From fragmented and perhaps biased reports so far this bill seems far from that and a step back.

[hrothgar]

I note earlier threads which seem to agree that a carbon tax that was revenue neutral was a good first step forward. Perhaps with some version of a nuclear component?

 

From fragmented and perhaps biased reports so far this bill seems far from that and a step back.

For what its worth. Andrew Sullivan's blog has had some pretty good coverage of the debate over the climate bill.

[Mbodell]

I understand the bill is 1300 pages long and I have not read it.

 

 

One thing I just heard that would concern me if true is that in the cap and trade bill many if not all of the permits are being given away in some bizarro procedure rather than being auctioned off which guts the whole bill.

 

Again I have no idea if this is a good bill or a real stinker.

That is the key point of the Waxman-Markey as opposed to some of the other more "liberal" bills that were for the more pure auction.

 

From an economic standpoint as long as they are transferable in a prefect market then it doesn't matter who gets them at the start (in terms of pricing carbon and getting the people for whom it is easiest to switch to switch). Of course it does matter who gets them in that those people get a win fall. If they are all auctioned off with the win fall going to the tax payer then that is a big win for gov't and arguably a big loss for business. In theory, one could imagine a world where we give permits in proportion to current pollution levels so that we keep the pain on business more equal. I doubt very much the W-M bill does this right.

 

I also question how businesses who have been getting away with pollution in the past don't deserve to get hit with greater pain. Because really we are just pricing in the economic externalities. So I think a purer auction with the gov't keeping the revenue would be a much better idea.

 

However, the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. So it is difficult to know if a "better" bill could make it. And really any bill is an improvement over the past administration who basically wanted to deny and ignore global climate change.

[mike777]

"And really any bill is an improvement over the past administration who basically wanted to deny and ignore global climate change"

 

 

Yes this often seems to be the bottom line, any bill is better than no bill but what if the bill does harm?

 

1) see end of world pollution

2) see jobs bill

3) seehealthcare

 

I think people forget, governments default on debt, governments/countries disappear.

 

 

Many of these posts seem to assume without saying so...anything is better than nothing......governments do not fail.....

 

This bill may be a good first step forward but all I hear is the speaker saying, jobs, jobs,jobs, jobs....

[luke warm]

do you?... it's pretty much always been your way to attack the person rather than to engage in "honest discourse"... btw, what crap are you speaking of?

I will readily admit that there are certain individuals that I attack and you are most certainly on said list.

 

I have very little tolerance for idiots; much less ones who knowingly post false information trying to pollute threads. Feel free to claim that your "just providing a skeptical view". Your actions speak for themselves. You constantly parrot right wing talking points.

 

Different people respond in different ways. A number of individuals on these forums simple choose to ignore your postings because they think your incapable of engaging in real conversation.

 

I'm a bit more rude (and I think that its a mistake to ignore your ilk)

i sense fear in you... you fear it will be shown that co2 has little or no impact on climate change, which you already know in your heart... as yoda might say, fear produces anger and anger hate... fear leads to the dark side, darth dick

 

outside of that, my statement stands - you prefer to attack the person rather than the points... i notice you didn't reference the "false information" i "knowingly" posted, or the "right-wing talking points"

[PassedOut]

However, the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. So it is difficult to know if a "better" bill could make it. And really any bill is an improvement over the past administration who basically wanted to deny and ignore global climate change.

Agreed. Here is Thomas Friedman's take: Just Do It

 

There is much in the House cap-and-trade energy bill that just passed that I absolutely hate. It is too weak in key areas and way too complicated in others. A simple, straightforward carbon tax would have made much more sense than this Rube Goldberg contraption. It is pathetic that we couldn’t do better. It is appalling that so much had to be given away to polluters. It stinks. It’s a mess. I detest it.

 

Now let’s get it passed in the Senate and make it law.

 

Why? Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as America voting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere.

 

More important, my gut tells me that if the U.S. government puts a price on carbon, even a weak one, it will usher in a new mind-set among consumers, investors, farmers, innovators and entrepreneurs that in time will make a big difference — much like the first warnings that cigarettes could cause cancer. The morning after that warning no one ever looked at smoking the same again.

This bill acknowledges that the US government must be responsible for mitigating the damage done to the climate by our people and businesses. Once that precedent has been set, we'll no doubt have to make sure that the government clamps down harder in the future. But you have to start somewhere.

[helene_t]

It sounds pretty pathetic. Of course I have no basis of saying this as all I know about the bill is what has been posted/quoted here.

 

If I had been in the US congress (and suppose that I knew as little about the issue as I do now), my first inclination would probably have been to abstain, then the rhetorics of the opponents would make me so sick that I would end up voting yes anyway.

 

Btw, how does this scheme compare to the transferable emission rights for sulphur?

[hrothgar]

i sense fear in you... you fear it will be shown that co2 has little or no impact on climate change, which you already know in your heart... as yoda might say, fear produces anger and anger hate... fear leads to the dark side, dick

Jimmy's gone back to the penis references....

In times of stress, he always seems to go and grasp for the penis.

A Freudian would have a field day with this one.

 

Regardless, I think the most telling comment about the page that you posted is that it is (almost) completely isolated from the rest of Wikipedia. None of the main pages discussing climate change link to this list because no one cares that much about the opinion of isolated individuals. Search hard enough and you can find folks who will say anything. Its simply not that relevant.

 

I was able to find the list linked on the following which provides an exhaustive list of organizations that different with your wonderous list.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

 

The link immediately follows the following this quote:

 

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]

 

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.

[helene_t]

Jimmy's gone back to the penis references....

Hands up everyone who would be pleased if Richard would more often apply his knowledge and analytical skills to more interesting issues.

[luke warm]

i sense fear in you... you fear it will be shown that co2 has little or no impact on climate change, which you already know in your heart... as yoda might say, fear produces anger and anger hate... fear leads to the dark side, dick

Jimmy's gone back to the penis references....

In times of stress, he always seems to go and grasp for the penis.

A Freudian would have a field day with this one.

 

Regardless, I think the most telling comment about the page that you posted is that it is (almost) completely isolated from the rest of Wikipedia. None of the main pages discussing climate change link to this list because no one cares that much about the opinion of isolated individuals. Search hard enough and you can find folks who will say anything. Its simply not that relevant.

 

I was able to find the list linked on the following which provides an exhaustive list of organizations that different with your wonderous list.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

 

The link immediately follows the following this quote:

 

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]

 

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.

so that's the "false information" i "knowingly" posted, or the "right-wing talking points" i spouted?

 

i don't know why you're so angry (well that isn't true, i do know - i pointed it out above)... passedout stated, and i suppose you agree, that opponents are either delusional or have some sort of profit motive, neither of which can possibly be true of supporters

 

you really don't make a lot of sense... why is the placement of the page the most telling comment and not the ... comments themselves? and fwiw i didn't search hard at all, it's one of the first pages to come up on any search

 

assume for a moment that the earth is cooling and not warming... in your opinion, could man do anything about this?

[hrothgar]

assume for a moment that the earth is cooling and not warming... in your opinion, could man do anything about this?

Comment 1: I'm not sure that I agree with the way the question is phrased. If the world were experiencing global cooling there are any number of things that mankind could do. Scientists have provided a number of ways that geo engineering could be used to combat global warming (for example, pumping large amounts of particulate matter into the atmosphere, erecting large mirrors in space, trying to bioengineer carbon eating trees, etc.). I'm quite sure that there are equally creative ways to combat global cooling. This doesn't mean that these are necessarily a good idea. It's hard to predict what will happen when you mess with a complex system. I don't think anyone has a real good idea what the long term effects of a deliberate attempt to replicate the Krakatoa eruption would be.

 

Comment 2: The discussions about global cooling pointed at a number of (potential) causes. Many of these involved man made actions (soot and other particulate matter being a popular explanation). Some discussions involved naturally occuring patterns (eccentricities in the earth's orbit, etc). At the 10,000 foot level, I would tend to differentiate between a man made event and a naturally occuring cycle. Its a lot easier to address the former than the latter...

[helene_t]

Scientists have provided a number of ways that geo engineering could be used to combat global warming (for example, pumping large amounts of particulate matter into the atmosphere, erecting large mirrors in space, trying to bioengineer carbon eating trees, etc.).

Really? Never heard about it.

 

Oh yes, carbon eating trees I have heard about, there is one just outside my kitchen window.

[hrothgar]

so that's the "false information" i "knowingly" posted, or the "right-wing talking points" i spouted?

The list of quotes that you posting contains a large amount of factually incorrect information.

 

Claims about solar forcing

Claims about that global cooking was scientific consensus during the 1970s

Claims that there is no warming

...

 

I don't buy for a minute that you were trying to shed light on the motivations of the various scientists; nor do I think that you were trying to show the wide variety of different reasons that said individuals claim for their skeptics.

 

You were trying to promote/popularize their ideas.

[luke warm]

But on the federal level, it seems to me that the republican party is forcing out everyone who puts reason ahead of rigid ideology, or who puts the common good ahead of the current version of republican party.

then they must be replacing them, presumably with more intelligent republicans, given the latest rasmussen poll

I don't buy for a minute that you were trying to shed light on the motivations of the various scientists; nor do I think that you were trying to show the wide variety of different reasons that said individuals claim for their skeptics. 

 

You were trying to promote/popularize their ideas.

no, i was trying to show that there are learned men and women of different intellectual disciplines who disagree with the consensus - for one reason or another... as for factually incorrect information, we can all show charts and stats that promote our particular bias... the least an intellectually honest person can do is admit to such bias

[hrothgar]

But on the federal level, it seems to me that the republican party is forcing out everyone who puts reason ahead of rigid ideology, or who puts the common good ahead of the current version of republican party.

then they must be replacing them, presumably with more intelligent republicans, given the latest rasmussen poll

Nate Silver did some great work showing that Ramusussen's polling results are consistently out of line with just about every other poll.

 

Andrew Sullivan has a simplified analysis here:

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-rasmussen.html

 

There's some good discussion available here:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archiv..._elites_ver.php

[PassedOut]

Interesting article in Politico about Pelosi corralling the votes the votes needed to pass Waxman-Markey: Chaos and arm-twisting gives Nancy Pelosi a major win

 

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passed by only 219-212, after an epic day replete with Republican ambushes, petty betrayals, hastily rearranged flights and disappearing acts.

 

Yet for all the apparent chaos, the action was commanded by a House speaker maneuvering with the urgency of someone who knew her reputation was on the line.

 

Despite Republican promises to punish battleground state Democrats for supporting a “cap and tax” plan, Pelosi and her fractious caucus passed their most serious test to date.

 

And whatever the fallout, aides say that both Pelosi and President Barack Obama now know that their majority can hold together — barely — when placed under withering pressure — which may bode well for the equally arduous trials on health care reform.

 

At the end of it all, Pelosi, who floated in and out of the House cloakroom all day, impossible to miss in an arctic-white linen pantsuit, gambled big and pulled off one of the most important legislative victories of her career, a win she views as a personal vindication, according to those close to the San Francisco Democrat.

 

“There’s no question about it,” Clyburn said after the vote. “She went back to her whipping days of old. She is an incredibly good whip. I’m trying to learn from her every day.”

Seems as though some democrats had to be strongly persuaded to vote for this first step because it did not go far enough (hope they will keep pushing for more). And, of course, there are always the delusional...

[luke warm]

But on the federal level, it seems to me that the republican party is forcing out everyone who puts reason ahead of rigid ideology, or who puts the common good ahead of the current version of republican party.

then they must be replacing them, presumably with more intelligent republicans, given the latest rasmussen poll

Nate Silver did some great work showing that Ramusussen's polling results are consistently out of line with just about every other poll.

you mean the rasmussen polls (or some of them) aren't the consensus? i seem to recall a decent result in the 2008 federal election polls

[luke warm]

And, of course, there are always the delusional...

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

[PassedOut]

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

If it had been established that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere had the effect of releasing more heat into space rather than trapping heat -- and I contended nevertheless that pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air would cause global warming -- then yes, it would be fair to call me delusional. Hope that answers your question.

[luke warm]

nope, but thanks anyway

[hrothgar]

And, of course, there are always the delusional...

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

If it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no impact on climate change, then it would probably be fair to claim the expression delusional applies to individuals (myself included) who argue in favor of sharply curtailing CO2 emissions to combat climate change.

 

So what?

[Winstonm]

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

 

It is noteworthy I believe to point out the frequency of your use of "thought exercises" in an attempt to create an aura of validity to the point for which you argue. It wasn't so long ago we had the thought exercise of (paraphrased here) suppose L.A. were to be bombed by a terrorist nuke would torturing the terrorist be a valid response? In either case, answering the question creates no new information and only serves to deflect attention away from facts.

 

I don't know if you use this technique due to your philosophical nature or if you believe misdirection to be a valid (and maybe it is - I don't know) debate tool. Regardless, I don't see how these constructs help lead to accuracy in our knowledge.

 

More to the point, I believe them to be an example of the lack of integrity in journalism that Glenn Greenwald has been pointing out and criticizing, that to our present "journalists" there are only two sides, the beltway Democratic viewpoint and the beltway Republican viewpoint, and the role of the journalist is not to determine truth but simply to "report" accurately the "spin" from each side - the modern stenographic approach to journalism.

 

In this twisted Ministry of Spin scenario, truth occurs when there is a bipartisan acceptance of the correct lie - and therefore we live with the whitewashing phrase "enhanced interrogation" while real reporters in other countries use its proper name: torture.

 

So in this sense I don't fault you for your beliefs - you seem to have chosen to believe the beltway Republican spin, which is pronounced by our corporate media as simply one "version" of the truth, not to be discounted or challenged but simply reported.

 

In this respect I agree with Richard - it is dangerous to allow this type of "spin" to go unchallenged; however, I do not care whether it is Republican lies or Democratic distortions. all must be brought to task for unsubstantiated claims.

 

And our best hope to reveal lies and uncover truth is an adversarial press. Unfortunately, we no longer have that in the U.S. And thus we muddle along with mass confusion created by orchestrated half-lies reported as "news", and all we have to do instead of think and analyze is simply chose whose "views" we are more comfortable with - almost as if truth had become nothing more than another phone-in vote on American Idol, subject to the whims of the brain-numbed masses.

[mike777]

The following points I read in some media reports. These may be biased sources so take them with a grain of salt. I have not read the bill.

 

1) Most of the permits will be given away in the largest corp. giveaway in history.

2) States are asked to put price controls on the permits which I would think would kill the anticarbon incentives.

3) EPA is banned from studying carbon produced by corn ethanol.

4) SMoot-Hawley type tariffs imposed on goods imported from countries that do note reduce their emmisions. This sounds like protectionism and calling for a trade war.

5) The goal of 17% reduction by 2020 is not binding and US greenhouse emmisions might not be reduced at all by this bill.

 

Just going back to the OP, I guess I have come to the conclusion one can be against this bill and not be a traitor to the planet.

 

 

"Paul Krugman views the 212 votes in the US House of Representatives against the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill as a kind of treason: Betraying the Planet"