Comments on: Boxer Eyes Cost in Prepping for Climate Bill Fight

By: Sweden to US: Take action! « depp-copenhagen

Sweden to US: Take action! « depp-copenhagen — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:53:51 +0000

[...] is because there currently is no Senate version of the bill. Today the Washington Independent reported that Senator Boxer is still preparing the details of her committee version, which gets more [...]

By: chen123

chen123 — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:22:16 +0000

http://www.coolaf1.com/ Nike AF1
http://www.theaf1shoes.com/ Nike Air Force 1
http://www.dunksbsite.com/ Nike dunk sb shoes
http://www.jordanshoessite.com/ Nike Air Jordan shoes
http://www.maxshoessite.com/ Nike Air Max shoes

By: chen123

chen123 — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:19:46 +0000

href="http://www.coolaf1.com /">Nike AF1
Nike Air Force 1
Nike dunk sb shoes
Nike Air Jordan shoes
Nike Air Max shoes

By: CEI Touts Study of Non-Existent Climate Policy | The Lie Politic

CEI Touts Study of Non-Existent Climate Policy | The Lie Politic — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:05:39 +0000

[...] cry from the plan that passed the House in June, and is likely very far from the bill the Senate is expected to take up. The House bill auctions just 15 percent of credits, and invests a significant amount of money [...]

By: CEI Touts Study of Non-Existent Climate Policy | GSA Schedule Services

CEI Touts Study of Non-Existent Climate Policy | GSA Schedule Services — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:25:38 +0000

By: Energy and Global Warming News for September 14: Green jobs legislation passes in New York; China clean tech market could be worth $1 trillion a year | Climate Vine

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:59:43 +0000

[...] Boxer Eyes Cost in Prepping for Climate Bill Fight In May 2008, Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) delivered the final text of the Climate Security Act, the failed bill to conquer climate change. She included with her summary a long list of how the $6.7 trillion in pollution permits would be distributed. Some observers equated Boxer’s list to a deli counter for special interests – line up, get a number, get a cut. The document read like a massive wish-list, and included “transition assistance” for every fossil fuel and heavy industry, and handouts to agriculture, the building sector, renewable energies, “clean” coal, cellulosic biofuels, truck fleets, firefighters, and state energy programs. The bill, which Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) co-sponsored and Boxer ushered through the Senate, aimed to slash carbon dioxide emissions 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 71 percent by 2050. The plan would create a cap-and-trade system that would require polluting entities to acquire permits to emit carbon dioxide. Some would be auctioned, while others would be handed out for free. In total, the plan would be worth trillions over the 38-year lifetime of the bill. It included a significant amount of money for consumer tax relief, but that was lost in the list of industry hand-outs. While Boxer’s allocations were the result of clear political and economic calculations, it wasn’t presented in a way that helped her sell it to the public. Now, with the country wrapped up in the worst recession in decades and Republicans gearing up to malign climate legislation as just another tax on hard-working Americans, Boxer is going to have an even tougher time selling a climate plan. Her job will become more difficult if it reads like a laundry list of handouts to industry, while increasing costs on average energy consumers. Whatever climate bill Boxer puts on the table this fall will likely have a similar dollar figure attached, worth trillions over the bill’s lifespan. As she shapes the bill this year, however, Boxer seems to be taking more time and deliberation in crafting her plan for distributing value of a climate program, figuring out a way to keep costs low and making other “tweaks,” as she has told reporters. Environmental advocates say they are confident that stronger 2020 emissions reductions targets are among the tweaks she’s going to make to the House bill, but that would likely make the plan more expensive. One of the reasons the House was able to pass a bill in June was that they employed more effective messaging on the costs and benefits of legislation than Boxer did last year, according to advocates who have worked closely with Congress on the bills. House leaders pushing the legislation billed each allocation as pursuing one of three goals — creating new jobs, supporting the development of clean energy technology, or reducing costs to consumers. “I think that’s what was maybe missing a little bit — without criticizing Boxer’s staff — last year,” said Nathaniel Keohane, director of economic policy and analysis? at Environmental Defense Fund. “I think one thing the House was able to do, with the benefit of the lessons learned from the Senate process, was to block out and frame what we were trying to do and accomplish with the allocations. I think that people didn’t get that same message coming out of the Senate.” [...]

By: Rmoen

Rmoen — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:28:35 +0000

Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. Whereas when the House passed the bill it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap-and-trade, opinion now is off the charts against it.

Frankly, I don’t see Americans supporting cap-and-trade or any CO2 regulation until we have our own ‘climate truth commission.’ We now largely out-sources our climate science to the United Nations, a political organization, dedicated to advancing their “consensus” view that mankind’s CO2 drives global warming. The problem is, their view is neither a consensus and very likely not accurate. Why?

1) The 600 climate scientists who worked on the UN’s Climate Change 2007 report never voted on the ‘drives’ issue. That conclusion was reached by only about 50 scientists plus UN bureaucrats.
2) The UN has a huge conflict of interest. The ‘Kyoto Protocol’ is their’s and they have a vested interest in demonizing CO2.
3) Thousands of knowledgable people and climate scientists worldwide tell us the UN is wrong.
4) Past climate changes–100s of them–were driven by Mother Nature, not mankind. Yet, the UN took Mother Nature off the table when they limited their evaluation to ‘climate change caused by human activity’.
5) There is no ‘smoking gun.’ The proof that CO2 drives global warming is circumstantial.
6) The UN treats unproven climate projections as ‘fact’, yet UN forecasts for the last 10 years do not fit what actually happened.
7) The UN used faulty data to bolster unwarranted findings in the past.

The United States needs our own objective, transparent climate commission to think-through global warming. We need the advice of a bi-partisan ‘Climate Truth Commission’ before we burden our economy with expensive energy. Both sides of the man-made global warming issue should welcome such an approach. …each is so sure of themselves.

– Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com