Senate GOP Blocks Climate Vote »
Posted by: ZiegfeldGirl 3 months ago130 Comments Report this Story
Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would substantially raise gasoline and other energy prices.
Read Full Story at time.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 130
-
0%
ZiegfeldGirl3 months ago
"Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote. The 48-36 vote failed to reach even a majority, a disappointment to the bill's supporters."
Obviously this needed more discussion.
Reply-
0%
donald513 months ago
Yes Ziggy, you submitted another article that validates the obstructionist Senatorial Repugs... as the reason why our Congress has not been effective... the same fools who would never allow a conviction of a Bush impeachment, however deserving!
When the Dems get to 2/3rds in the next election, it won't matter... and the will of the people will no longer be subordinate to that of big business and repug corruption! We'll get the Supreme Court back next!
Reply-
0%
mesodude3 months ago
I think this vote represents another nail in the GOP coffin. Over and over again the Republicans demonstrate that they absolutely DO NOT CARE what the vast majority of Americans want or believe. Their corporate masters are the ones who matter above the electorate and above the greater interests of the US. I can respect the GOP for going out with a fight even as the Republican party is going down in spectacular flames. I just want Propeller cons here to remember this story and remember in November that they were warned that this is exactly why Republicans will lose a record number of seats and why McCain will be waving at the White House from the street. The GOP is despicable and they deserve to be punished severely for their treasonous behaviour. Apparently they think they were put in office for the purpose of wh0ring the planet for temporary gain. How very, very sad. ;-(
Reply
-
0%
Dionys3 months ago
"Obviously this needed more discussion. "
But unfortunately they didn't get more discussion as the Repugnant Cons blocked even that.
Reply
-
0%
newbie04203 months ago
I'm all for cleaner cars and less pollution but not in a knee-jerk reaction kind of way that seems so popular now a days.
According to the Father of Climatology:
http://newsbusters.org/node/13541
"In an interview published by Wisconsin's Capital Times Monday, Bryson spoke about the money involved in this "religion," and when asked about soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" marvelously responded (emphasis added throughout):
"Don't make me throw up...It is not science. It is not true."
"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said."
Reply-
0%
newbie04203 months ago
Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
"It's like there is an elephant charging in [sic, the room] and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."
Reply-
0%
newbie04203 months ago
For the alarmists who love to depict every skeptic as being on the take of oil companies:
Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.
How refreshing. Can the alarmists in the scientific community â;; and folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore â;; claim that they are doing their "work" for nothing? Read on:
So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?
Reply -
0%
mesodude3 months ago
"Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said."
--I don't trust anyone who voted for Bush, I don't believe you and most scientists TOTALLY don't agree with your opinion (and you aren't even a scientist). Why do you think you're credible?
Reply
-
-
0%
mesodude3 months ago
"I'm all for cleaner cars and less pollution but not in a knee-jerk reaction kind of way that seems so popular now a days."
--You object to hearing that cleaner cars and less pollution will happen only if we actually DO something about it instead of just being "all for" it (which, when you think about it, really doesn't mean a whole lot, does it?).
Reply
-
-
0%
newbie04203 months ago
Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Bryson then pointed out how the media work:
Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"
The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."
Reply-
0%
mesodude3 months ago
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide."
--Does Bryson mention how much money is being made by Big Oil, that the oil companies have paid shill scientists and online noisemakers like you people here on Propeller? I couldn't find that in the article. I wonder why. ;-(
Reply
-
-
0%
newbie04203 months ago
While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide.
For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.
"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."
Yet, the most wonderful part of this interview was:
Bryson didn't see Al Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."
"Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."
Reply-
0%
mesodude3 months ago
"While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide."
--I still don't understand why you think the few know more than the many. Why do you trust this Bryson person over thousands of others? Just not following your logic and reasoning at all. ;-(
Reply
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
0%
abntv3 months ago
Here we go again.
Knee "jerk" politicians trying to show the country they are working hard to save the planet.
Reply -
-
0%
Goppy3 months ago
Property Rights?!
Did I hear you say Property Rights?
You mean liek the property rights that Goerge W. Bush and his cronies stole from middle class citizens in Arlington Texas?
YOu prollally dint never hear tell of it. Mainstream Media never really talked about it ... cause, you know ... it wasnt a LIBURAL story.
You should check it out ... its WAY more interestin that the Clinton WhiteWater story.
Here ... heres a very short snippet written by an angry American Citizen.
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/arti...
(the 13 acres mentioned was just the neighborhood that was seized. A total of 200 acres was taken.)
---
Our GW, a pillar of right wing ideeologie?
OR ....
Representin the absolute PERVERSION of traditional Republican values? .... Oh heck, who cares?! We just know we is sposed to hate them Democrats!
Reply
-
-
0%
nostalgia3 months ago
Senator James M. Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, together with Senator Larry Craig, today blasted Committee Democrats for voting against amendments to the Lieberman-Warner bill that would ensure the necessary development of nuclear energy to meet the emission goals as stated in the bill. Senators Inhofe and Craig both requested votes on nuclear amendments
The Committee chose to ignore the inextricable link between nuclear energy and reduction in carbon emission. Failure to address the realities of complex issues such as these will make Senate floor consideration extremely difficult.
According to a recent European Union report, "The renunciation of nuclear power will make it impossible to achieve the objectives set regarding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the combating of climate change".
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi...
Reply-
0%
nostalgia3 months ago
Also in the above article:
The Clean Air Task Force modeling of the Subcommittee-passed version of S. 2191 indicates that 117 gigawatts of new nuclear generation must be in operation by 2030 to meet the objectives of the bill. 117 gigawatts of new nuclear generation would prevent the emission of 702 million metric tons of carbon emissions.
Sen. Inhofe's amendment (Inhofe Amendment #23) lays out a schedule under which new nuclear plants must begin operating in order to support that objective. The bill requires an extremely aggressive construction rate compared to relevant history. If nuclear energy ---- as the world's largest, proven source of non-emitting energy ---- cannot be deployed on a schedule that supports the objectives of this bill then those objectives, by definition, are unachievable.
Reply -
0%
Goppy3 months ago
Senator CRAIG is ridiculin the Democrats?
WOW ... that really means somethin!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sexandpoliti...
Ahh.. We Conservatives shure choose some funny poeple as heeros. Seems liek ever time somebody gets indicted, FOX hires them as an Info-Tainer!
G. Gordon Liddy - criminal
Ollie North - criminal
Dick Morris - caught with prostitute
and now, KARL ROVE ... widely known to have participated in a TREASONABLE offense of outing a CIA agent!
Ahhh ... I remember the good ole days when Republicans stood for integrity. Now they simply stand for stealin from the middle class and forkin it over to their wealthy cronies ... and payin FOX to cover it up.
Reply
-
-
0%
nostalgia3 months ago
"The Lieberman-Warner bill will burden American families with additional energy costs and significantly harm the United States economy," Senator Inhofe said. "Senators are going to be asking the American people to pay more for home energy and pay higher prices at the gas pump for no climate benefit. This bill will simply result in real economic pain, for no climate gain. MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen correctly summed up these types of efforts in March when he said, 'Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life.'
And just what will cap-and-trade legislation actually do? Cap-and-trade policies have been tried in Europe and they have proven to be an utter disaster. European emissions continue to climb while our current policies have resulted in emissions tailing off in the U.S. If we were going to impose enormous costs to our economy, a carbon tax would be a much more efficient and transparent approach.
Reply-
0%
nostalgia3 months ago
"This bill [S. 2191] is patterned after the Lieberman-McCain bill which an MIT study earlier this year found would cost $3500 per family of four. According to an EPA analysis, Lieberman-McCain would impose a price increase for oil of 20% and for natural gas of 23%. This will have enormous impacts, especially on the poor.
"Why should we send American jobs to China while China builds a new coal plant every three days and will ramp up production even further? Moreover, our plants are more efficient than China's plants, so S.2191 could cause net global emissions to increase, not decrease.
CO2 cap-and-trade schemes were exposed by a recent CBO study as creating massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi...
Reply -
0%
mesodude3 months ago
""The Lieberman-Warner bill will burden American families with additional energy costs and significantly harm the United States economy," Senator Inhofe said."
--Basically, Inhofe is sobbing that Americans can't handle higher energy costs on top of the increases the GOP foisted on us by deregulating the energy industry. ExxonMobil-->monopoly-->rape of American public-->bigger CEO bonus-->GOP election year blame-shifting, shoulder-shrugging, posturing and assorted drama
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
donald513 months ago
Your 109th Repug Congress with Dumya had all the cards and did nothing! Oh yes, it was called the "DO NOTHING" Congress for a reason, wasn't it?
Lib? I'm retired military who voted Repug until 2000 when I saw the Repug lies finally! I'm just part of he 82% of Americans who knows how Dumya has screwed up the country... not one of you folks in denial of reality!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
stephen-johnson3 months ago
This dopey bill, ultimately, is a tax.
Had it been enacted, the average person would have to spend more money for fewer goods and services.
Thank God that it wasn't enacted.
Reply-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
stephen-johnson3 months ago
Purposely not drilling for oil, not building new refineries and using not nuclear power isn't helping the situation.
The $4 a gallon oil that we're paying was imposed on us by anti-capitalist environmentalist wackos, who would love to take earth back to its pristine, pre-humanity days.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Nixie3 months ago
"The 48-36 vote failed to reach even a majority, a disappointment to the bill's supporters."
Hmm...even when they are in the majority they can't get a majority...how lame must this bill have been?
Reply -
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
Nixie3 months ago
"It's a huge tax increase," argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal."
Oh good Lord, no!
Reply -
-
0%
nostalgia3 months ago
It's typical "Washington speak". There is no direct tax on the consumer
What Boxer doesn't say: when companies have to pay for carbon emissions - refineries, electric companies, manufacturers etc - they pass the increased costs to the consumers. You will pay more for the product through an increase in the purchase price. In Boxer's mind this isn't a "tax". It's an increase in the price.
That way Boxer can turn around and blame companies for increasing the price and pretend that it isn't the fault of Congress
As usual Congress never looked at how this scheme worked out for consumers in the EU. Their prices for electricity and gas skyrocketed. Companies closed and moved to India or China. At the same time, emission of CO2 in the EU INCREASED!
Worked really well didn't it?
Reply -
0%
mesodude3 months ago
But you trust oil co shills. How are they more credible? I'm dying to know... ;-)
Reply
-
-
0%
Nixie3 months ago
"Both presidential candidates, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, were absent, although supporters of the bill said they had sent letters advising they would have voted for the bill."
So Global Warming/Climate Change/Algore's Get-Rich-Quick Scheme won't be a campaign issue.
Reply-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.11 Replies
-
