Senate Climate Change Bill Expected September 30th

Sigh. I wish they'd focus on one problem at a time.

But Marilyn, there are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives, along with myriad committees, subcommittees and thousands of staff. Do you think they should all sit around while only those handful of committees that are negotiating a bill on a particular topic are working?

They want to overload the system. If they focus on one thing, it opens them up for scrutiny. If the work on several things and move quickly it will be harder for the public to keep up and mount an opposition.

Huh? Poliwonk, do you read the news? You don't think there has been "opposition?" You don't think people are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time? You don't think Congress should actually work full time? Maybe they should only work on one bill at a time, say, to declare the month of October national dog walker month. That should be good enough to get them through to Thanksgiving, right?

Think, people. Your comments are all about "Congress can't work too hard because it might make their heads hurt." Except next week it will be "Congress doesn't do anything."

Anyone know Pogo? Smarten up people!

But, David, if they work on a number of controversial bills at the same time, it will allow some to get through without much input from the people they serve. That's what happened with the cap & trade bill in the House. Poof and it was finished. Same thing with the spending bill - poof, and it was done, even though most had not even read it.

They need to start taking time to read what comes before them and paying attention to the people who vote for them.

Overloading the system: How about the incredible number of amendments to the health care bill in the Senate Finance Committee almost all introduced by Republicans?

Well, Nippy, since the President has ordered that they cannot start from scratch but have to work with what is available now, how else can we get what most Americans want (or don't want) if not by amendment to what already exists?

Are you people serious?

Yes David. We Are. Are you, or are you just blind?

No, Poliwonk, you are not serious. Bumper stickers aren't going to be good enough here. No "death panels" that don't exist. No "czars" to attack. No windmills to tilt at.

I'm not blind. We're not blind. And it's time for the sane people in the country to keep the guys with the sticks from poking out the eyes of honest, hard working Americans with their dishonest gibberish.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

only 5% of climate scientists believe that humans do not contribute to global warming.

http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Palin_Gingrich_Grassley_Supported_End_of_Life_Counselin_AKA_Death_Panels_90815

palin and other repubs were for death panels before they were against them.

Something else we don't need...

Why?

Because it raises taxes

How do you know, Poliwonk? It hasn't even been introduced yet. Or do you just read off the bloglines for your bumper sticker quote with no meaning.

Think!!!

Cap and Trade imposes fines on corporations that exceed their limits. Whether the bill is written or not, this is the whole basis of the bill. Just to clarify political language: Fine, fee, or penalty, = TAX when applied.

You have decided that "the whole basis for the bill" that you haven't seen and has not yet been introduced is something that you think you can rally your ideology around, despite having no actual knowledge of what is in the bill?

Furthermore, you have decided that you and the free market shouldn't have to assume your share of the costs that the free market historically has dumped on society, all while taking handouts in the billions?

And finally, you have decided that the sustainability of our planet is inconsequential, just because you feel that you have the right to externalize pollution and climate change costs?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202836.html

cap and trade may cost you $175 a year after 2020.

Yeaaaahhh! We get more taxes and business, going bankrupt from another "secret" bill rushed through by our corrupt Senators...

Not happy...

"Secret" bill? Did you even read the article? They have been working on this for 9 months and this is just the start of a process of building a final Senate bill, which may be months down the road. After which it will go through conference to reconcile it with the House bill passed months ago.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you say something so bizarre and devoid of any reality?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf

the rich pay a federal tax rate of about 25% after deductions.

David, you can't have it both ways. First you say there is no bill. Then you say they've been working on it for months.

We all know what's been proposed. It will raise prices and taxes. Here in Cincinnati, our local news people figured out it will cost us about $3600 per year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202836.html

cap and trade may cost you $175 a year after 2020.

Scott, be realistic, we have no idea what all this is going to cost and especially after 2020. Spain is getting rid of it for the "cost burden" and France is thinking about getting rid of it. Why can't we learn from others' mistakes?

David isn't it another one of those 1,000 page documents? Have you read it word for word? Do you know how it's going to affect farmers? which means our food supply? Again, if Spain is getting rid of it, WHY and we can't afford it! We need jobs! this will eliminate jobs even more.

Nora - You have decided it is evil without looking at it, even before it is introduced. What does that tell you about your willingness to find workable solutions to the nation's problems?

DAvid, I have been listening to those it affects. I come from a farm family/community. They cannot afford the energy usage penalty, they will be driven out of business. Up go our food costs.

We are desperate for jobs in the nation, penalizing factories will send whatever is left overseas.

And the insult of Gore and his mansion and jets asking us to cut back, yes. I am biased.

But the straw that breaks the proverbial camel is Spain's announcement. It is breaking them economically.

Isn't the U.S. broken economically enough already?

And withou Russia, Chinal, India, South America, etc etc. etc. It's MEANINGLESS to the envrionment. (remember, we won't be manufacturing anything anymore)

It's a foolish bill! And yes that is my opinion, and if it does pass, I also hope that I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

the congressional budget office says it may cost $175 a year after 2020.

your farm family may find it difficult to grow crops in the desert that might be caused by global warming.

And I know some of some beach front property in Nebraska you can get real cheap...


So how will the jobless pay for that, if it's true?

WE're headed for a cooling so it's okay, not worried.

Do you have any adult comment to offer, Nora?

Tired of your "sky is falling" misinformation... Bye

I guess not.

David, I think the infant covering its ears icon says it all.

"So how will the jobless pay for that, if it's true?"

so the economic sky will fall?

http://weblogs.marylandweather.com/2008/10/exploding_myth_of_1970s_global.html

there was never a global cooling consensus in the scientific community

The sad thing is that this will do absolutely nothing to help the environment nor will it reduce CO2 levels. The only thing it will do, is weaken the economy, lower standards of living, and reduce industrial output. It is base on false science, and an anti-industrial progressive agenda. This is BAD for America

How do you know, Poliwonk? The bill hasn't been introduced yet so you don't have a clue what is in it. You've reached your conclusion based solely 100% on ideology and don't even want to know the facts.

Think!!!!

The bill is also soley based 100% on ideology. Every "Scientist" that has come out in for it, are single issue scientists and have ignored any contrary facts to their research. Any contrary evidence is dismissed and villified. Many of these so-called scientist are part of advocacy groups and have been charged with only looking at evidence that supports their agenda.

Prove it, Poliwonk. List the exact provisions in the bill that hasn't been introduced yet, along with what the provision means, who has supported it and not supported it (and why), and the contrary facts to their research.

Then for each provision of the bill that has not yet been introduced, provide the contrary evidence that has been either dismissed or vilified or both.

Then back up your statement that "Many of these so-called scientist are part of advocacy groups and have been charged with only looking at evidence that supports their agenda" by providing evidence that shows what scientists to whom you are referring, what advocacy groups they belong to, and how they managed to look just at evidence that supports their agenda.

Then explain why this bill, which has not even yet been introduced, and which has been offered as a starting point for discussions, cannot be modified by the addition of good ideas from both parties and the deletion of bad ideas or ideas that are unworkable? Explain why the minority party would rather stand on street corners jumping up and down like crazy people bemoaning all the talking points you just floated without making any effort to offer any serious input to the process. Explain why they have been maneuvering since November 5th of 2008 to best position themselves for November of 2010 rather than participate in the governing of this country. And save the bumper stickers. Let's be honest for a change. Why are you and the minority party lining up against a bill that hasn't even been introduced yet rather than trying to help develop the best and most sustainable policy option?

Go for it.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

only 5% of climate scientists believe that humans do not contribute to global warming.

only 5% of climate scientists believe that humans do not contribute to global warming

It's possible that some people can't comprehend the idea of a legislature working on more than one thing at a time.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation: Both houses of congress are working on health care legislation when Mars invades and a huge earthquake causes large portions of the west coast to go under water. I guess the one thing at a time approach means that the legislators should finish the health care bill before worrying about the invasion and the natural disaster. It also raises the question of priority: which problem should the legislature tackle next?

Legislation is all about priorities. Obviously resources are limited and there are only 24 hours in the day, even in Washington DC. But to see people suggesting that we should simply ignore all of our pressing problems so the non-thinkers can focus all their resources attacking bills that haven't even been introduced yet is disheartening.

I repeat, we have 100 Senators and 435 Representatives and thousands of Congressional staff and tens of thousands of Executive branch staff in the various agencies.

Put them to work.

Despite what you may think David, Cap and Trade and climate change legislation will not make any noticeable improvements to the climate for many years, if at all. It fails to take into account natural climatic cycles. Nor does it take into account solar influences. It is just one big regulation imposed on corporations.

If you listen to the Left it is an emergency that "MUST BE FIXED NOW," but it is not.

Despite what you may think David, Cap and Trade and climate change legislation will not make any noticeable improvements to the climate for many years, if at all. It fails to take into account natural climatic cycles. Nor does it take into account solar influences. It is just one big regulation imposed on corporations.

Cite your sources (Hint, Glenn Beck doesn't count). Then cite all the sources that disagree and explain why your sources are more persuasive than then the others.

See, that's the point. You dismiss decades of research with a bumper sticker statement defies the facts and defies honesty.

Bumper stickers aren't going to cut it this time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-activity-not-the-cause-of-global-warming-456785.html

solar activity is not the cause of global warming, scientists say.

Claims that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming - rather than man-made greenhouse gases - have been comprehensively disproved by a detailed study of the Sun.

Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that recent global warming can be explained by variations in the natural cycles of the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss the influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.

Gook luck to all working on the bill. Upward and onward.

Thank you Ann. Obviously there are many discussions that will take place between its introduction on Wednesday and a final bill that can be signed by the President. It would be really nice if everyone focused on putting the best possible policy options into the bill rather than simply creating straw men to shoot down.

I think its a good bill.

Have you seen it?

I'm pulling for the robotic transit portion of the bill.

I mean, it could be in there...

Hmm...I like the idea of robotic transit. My robots have to drive cars or walk now.

LOL

Tim - How would robotic transit impact climate change?

Decrease the number of cars on the road at peak times.

Something has to replace the light rail we have now, it's not upgradable to driverless. Gains are grade separation, speed, regenerative braking, hours of operation (without drivers), and safety, to name a few.

Back to your regular program.

Tim - do you have a link to a good article where I can learn more about this? Thanks.

SAFEGE monorail has 5 potential manufacturers here. My favorites are the two traditional steel wheeled (faster) models. Aerorail has no web presence anymore, but Skytrain has most every patent to corner the entire market.

The driverless articles can be googled, they go back to 1950. Some, like our stealth bombers, are top secret. Ford, freight railroads, subways, and many governments are big players.

Links not working for me.

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPSafege.html

http://www.skytraincorp.com

I think it's easy to attack a bill that isn't written yet. It's certainly easier than attacking something concrete. I guess it depends on how good your imagination is.

I think we'd be a lot better off if we could accept the fact that it's getting warmer and it's a threat to our future. Regardless of the causes, it seems like common sense that we make reasonable efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change. I think coastal flooding and serious agricultural problems like not being able to grow the stuff we're growing now in the places where we grow it are probably worse than businesses having to incur additional costs. Maybe not. :)

I admit to being a bit fed up, Nippy, with the knee jerk reactions to any attempt to get anything done. The far right thinks the country is going socialist (or communist or fascist, which they often use interchangeably) every time someone from the White House or the majority party in Congress breathes. The far left does their share of jerking whenever the far right says anything.

And in the end nothing gets done.

Then these same people complain that Congress doesn't do anything.

Regarding your second paragraph, the scientific consensus is clear that we humans (Americans, Chinese, Indians, and everyone else to more or lesser extents) are having a severe impact on the sustainability of our planet. We must start working toward policy solutions, technological changes, and innovation. Which we would be doing and the country would be shooting to the front of the innovation bandwagon, if only the denialists would be even a tad bit honest.

It's time. This bill as introduced will definitely not be perfect. It WILL need adjustment before it comes out of the Senate. And WE MUST work to get rid of the crap and put in the good ideas that are missing.

But we can't do that if the people who gave this article a 1 rating aren't willing to think.

The bill hasn't even been introduced yet and the sides have already aligned against it. Just like health care. Just like every other important legislation.

It's time to smarten up.

I watched the first installment of "National Parks" last night. One of the things that caught my attention was the argument that it would be better to allow private enterprise to manage places like Yellowstone and Yosemite. This was during Reconstruction. The interesting thing was that Niagara Falls already provided an example of private enterprise managing something like that. The area around Niagara Falls combined elements of Las Vegas and a carnival midway in the 19th century.

Much of our national park infrastructure is in effect managed by private enterprise in the sense that there are contracts and concessions for restaurants, hotels, maintenance, etc. Of course, it's only private enterprise because the government subsidies the costs. The "free enterprisers" always seem to forget that they get tons of subsidies and incentives from the government that lowers their costs and allows them to make profits when they might otherwise not be able to, all while railing to "keep government out of business."

Thanks for the great information about the parks. I've realized that there are many places in the US I still have not visited and will make a priority to see before free markets destroy them all.

public libraries are evil and socialistic.

Oh, well Happy Birthday to me...a climate change bill... :-(

And it might just ensure you have many more happy birthdays! As will your kids and grandkids.

Happy Birthday! :)

I am amazed at the hysteria of the left. They blame everything on man and nothing on nature. Let's look at history:

1930's Drought and high Temps (Global Warming)
1970's Researchers convinced of another impending Ice Age (global cooling)
1990's Back To Global Warming.
2009 Some researchers are noticing a global cooling trend. Global Warming alarmists change the name to "Climate Change" to cover any changes that might occure in the climate to support their own agenda.

Even though the records weren't kept very accurately, we can go back in time to see various warming and cooling trends. Man is not the culprit Nature is. The proposed legislation is merely an attempt of progressives to expand the government and to impose its control over the people.

http://weblogs.marylandweather.com/2008/10/exploding_myth_of_1970s_global.html

there was never a global cooling consensus in the scientific community.

there was never a global cooling consensus

I trust that the government representatives will make the right choice. They have the manpower to research the good and the bad of this matter of 'Climate Change'.

That probably is more than a little too trusting, Darlene. There are political forces at work, as seen just from the comments on this post already. The bill will have stuff in it that was put there so they could take it out in trade for other things. There will be negotiations that will be impacted both by the political ideology and the need for many members to "pick the right option" (i.e., the one that will help them get reelected or will at least not keep them from being reelected). There are likely several good ideas that are not yet in the bill (I'm sure Sam Carana will be looking to see if it includes feebates). The work has only yet begun. The trick is to focus on what is actually in the bill itself and not the circus freak show that will be going on around it.

I know this is asking a lot to trust our representatives; but what can I do to educate myself on what is actually in the orginal bill itself?.

The bill will be available online when it is introduced. Go to thomas.loc.gov (the Library of Congress link), type in the number of the bill (e.g., S1 or HR 1) and it will take you to a page that gives a summary, tells the sponsors and cosponsors, current status, amendments, etc.

Obviously these are proposed laws, so even though they are supposed to be written in plain language they can get hard to follow. So when you look on the web for summaries and discussion, make sure you avoid the ultrabiased sources (they can be pretty obvious) and get different viewpoints.

That said, we all have our own day to day busy lives, which is why we elect people to represent us in Congress. So what we should all do is make sure we educate ourselves enough to know what the issues are, and then encourage our elected officials to be honest in their discussions and deliberations. If someone says there are death panels, for example, make them tell you exactly where the language is that they have interpreted that way. Almost always it will be easy to see that they are intentionally twisting the provisions to fit some bizarre distortion. If it sounds unbelievable, it's because it almost certainly is unbelievable.

Anyway, thanks for commenting, Darlene. I really appreciate it.

When they begin to introduce it go to WhiteHouse.gov and search for it in the box or Google it.

Thanks David!

And thank you Johnice

I am amazed at the hysteria of the left. They blame everything on man and nothing on nature. Let's look at history:

Yes, let's look at history:

1930's Drought and high Temps (Global Warming)

Bad land management and a dramatic overexpansion of agricultural practices helped take a bad drought and turn it into a disaster that impacted every American. People thought that we couldn't possibly impact the vast Earth. They were wrong, despite scientists telling them otherwise.

1970's Researchers convinced of another impending Ice Age (global cooling)

Sure, run the old global cooling canard up the flagpole. Despite the fact that the idea was only supported by a few studies and as science continued to investigate those few claims it quickly became clear that it was in error. That's what science does. It takes every valid study into consideration and then repeats and tests to see if it holds water. When it doesn't it is discarded. Which is why when a scientific consensus does get reached it is based on thousands of studies and years of analysis and discussion, thus showing that the final conclusion is robust.

1990's Back To Global Warming.

James Hansen testified to Congress in 1988 about global warming and that we needed to start doing something about it. He based his testimony on decades of work at that point, and the decades of work since that time has only reinforced the understanding of what was going on then. And if we continue to deny the science, the testimony in 10 years could very well be that its too late.

2009 Some researchers are noticing a global cooling trend. Global Warming alarmists change the name to "Climate Change" to cover any changes that might occure in the climate to support their own agenda.

No, researchers who are associated with free market think tanks claim that a plateauing of temperatures is "cooling" (it isn't) and then immediately forget that natural variability could be at play and feedback loops from melting glacial and ice cap ice, along with continued growth of pollutant-spewing industry in China and India, are creating antagonistic effects that actually could be masking the global warming impact. That and the fact that other measurements indicate that warming is actually speeding up. As for the nomenclature, climate change merely is more descriptive of the more complex processes that include variable impacts in different parts of the world and atmosphere.

Even though the records weren't kept very accurately, we can go back in time to see various warming and cooling trends. Man is not the culprit Nature is.

You mean the warming and cooling trends that take tens of thousands or millions of years to occur? Versus what we see over a much shorter period of time?

The proposed legislation is merely an attempt of progressives to expand the government and to impose its control over the people.

Are you really that paranoid? "Control the people??" Like some sort of hypnotism? And you claim to be serious? You cannot say something so paranoid and delusional as that and expect people to take you seriously. Oh, and look at your history. It is the current minority party that has expanded the government more than the current majority party. The difference is that the minority party focuses it's expansion on the benefit of the few under the theory that it will somehow "trickle down" while the majority party focuses its expansion on the rights of the many under the theory that we all live in this country, not just the ones who have most of the money.

I support this move and the position it will place us in as more of a proactive nation on the issue rather than nay sayers as Bush instructed at the meeting in Asia 2+ years ago. The U.S. Representatives in the audience were asked to play or leave.

I've been in many international situations where the US, because it refused to take the helm was relegated to the trailing dinghy.

Now, wouldn't it make more sense for the US to play a leadership role than to whine while bobbing along behind the ship?

That is what POTUS 44 is negotiating now and will continue to push and press upon Congress. There are so many oil paid-fors in that bunch I know that they are aware that the oil is running out and that POTUS 44 is not going to approve off shore and National Parks drilling. So they will continue to be the Nay sayers while yet, another Bill is voted on on down party lines and not bipartisan.

What international situations did the US fail to lead in that now we are whining about?

After years of running in place we are scrambling to catch up! The U.S. started a clean energy "Wind Power" program years ago and Europe ran with it. I have friends in the EU who lived here for just short of a decade and ran back to the EU last year. They all commented on how far behind the U.S. was in regards to the environment. I remain in contact with them today and they are hopeful that America begins to adapt many of the changes they have made.

We will, with the cooperation of Congress excel in Clean energy manufacturing and alternate fuel sources. We just need for Congress to get off of their attitudes and move forward.

It is not nice to be a hold out in environmental issues and labeled not just "The ugly Americans" but "The Dirty Americans".

problem with Nora and Poliwonk is that they do not understand (and also do not wish to understand) the realities of human causality of climate change. If you understand this causality, you understand that this issue is bigger than "nobody can charge me more money for electricity, because God said so".

If of course you DON'T understand it, then it seems quite logical to see in entirely in terms of your money. It flows from a lack of understanding.

I think it's more a question of refusing to understand because it would cause a rethinking of basic philosophy, which can be more than a little disconcerting...especially when your philosophy is that the status quo is just dandy.

:)

I'm glad the powers that be changed the terminology-I wasn't buying the global warming thing!

i think scientists cause it climate change because they think global warming can actually cause an ice age if it has an effect the salt water belt in the north atlantic.

I think Climate change is the most important issue facing us today, more important even than the health care issue.

We are not allowed to see the entire bill being proposed. All we get is little snips here and there that really tell us nothing. These little snips are what cause all the conspiracy theories going around. I really do not believe their is anyone in the house or senate that can tell us what is in the bill entirely. This is not right but it has been going on for so long that it has become standard practice for our congressional representatives to vote based on the part of the bill they are interested in and just ignore the rest.

I agree with David that our congress should be working more than one piece of legislation and they should be in the halls of congress to do it. When I find out that one of my senators is sleeping the day away in his New York penthouse and the other one in the state stumping with big business when important debate is going on I do not call this any kind of representation at all.

Cleaning up the environment and going green is tied pretty close to health care because it will eliminate the air born pollutants that are hazardous to everyone's health.

Its easy to understand why people do not trust our law makers after all that has happened and the way they take up with big business but we have to start with something and the people that complain the most are the one that keep electing the same politicians over and over they say can't be trusted.

The entire bill will be posted online when it is introduced. Go to thomas.loc.gov (the Library of Congress link), type in the number of the bill (e.g., S1 or HR 1) and it will take you to a page that gives a summary, tells the sponsors and cosponsors, current status, amendments, etc.

Also, Johnice noted above that it should be put on Whitehouse.gov, so you can check that as well.

This is just the beginning of the process, so there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss specific provisions.

I would suggest that it isn't the little snips that cause all the conspiracy theories, but rather the fake spin that ideologues give snippets of the legislation that they extract out of context and then lie about.

Finally, I think we all need to be a lot more aware. Many people don't even know who their Senators are, never mind the Representative for their district. That's not right. We all have a responsibility in the governing of this country, and it's time we start becoming informed enough to reward hard work and honesty in the people we elect to represent us, and not reward pandering to us. It really is up to us.

Interesting, we'll see how far it gets. The midterms and loss of political capital on other fronts is going to hurt this effort.

With support for the House version so narrow, it'll be something to see what the Senate can come up with that has much of a chance. Opposition is bi-partisan and pretty thick.

as long as it does not raise what I pay for my utilities, then good.

it will raise what you pay by $175 a year after 2020. sorry that you have to sacrifice a little for the good of your great grandkids.

IF that was now, after my rent was paid, I would not be able to afford utilities.
The disabled can not afford this.
Going by what my disability check has gone up the last 10 years, I wouold have to stop buying my cane, and hand splints; and opsibbly my medicine as well.
SInce I would die under those circumstances, how can I have grandkids if I am dead??
Even IF the US does this, if India, or China; or a bunch of similar "developing countries;" do not also "sign on;" then, what the US does, will not matter.

so you can't afford $15 a month?

that's about 50 cents per day.

but you can afford a computer? or you have time to go to one of those evil socialistic public libraries and use their computers?

ed, you need to pull up on those straps.

15 now, but when the trading for those "carbon" trades, comes full circle, it will end up well more than $100 to $350 bucks a month if my electricity provider is not totally within the limits.
Even though the new plant here in Springfield mo; is well within current standards, if the levels are raised, then those that need to trade will pay much more.
Scott, I am a disabeled US Army veteran. Making fun of what I earn shows me that you seem really mean spirited.
I have only been 3 times to a movie theater in over 15 years. Only once a month do I eat out. I use the public buss system. So IF I do indulge ion buying a pc, then so what?
You need to learn compassion.
Also, become a part of the real world. Make utilities too expensive, and the next cold or hot spell, thousands will die because they could not afford their utilities.
Yes, we need cleaner air. Those who are disabled like me deserve to live.
You can NOT prove that it will ONLY be $15 a month.
Some of the models show an increase of more than $300 a month.
It will fall between one of those extremes.
And frankly, after your little "side attacks" about my ability to pay makes me think that you either have money like a rockafeller, and that you have no ideal what it is like to be poor.
Your "side attack's show me that you are no more concerned with the truth than your opposing side.
Both sides in this have lied. You need to stop these little personal attacks on others.
I can not believe what you say now.

there could be more important things in the world than that, Ed.

True, but as I pointed out above, what good is it doing if I have to die for it?
I do not think that my rent will be the same 10 years from now, and I had made those projections like my rent would be the same.
IF all of the countries had signed on, and IF there was a "price protection" for the disabled, then I would say yes.
Should I have to give up my medication, and support devices, like a cane, and medication, so I could afford my utilities??
I would end up moving to an off the electric grid home where I would heat with wood.

Yes, there are more important things. BUT forcing the poor and disabled to make such choices, why not shoot us now and be done with it?
I had to leave ST Louis because of the air pollution.
I should not have to die to save the world.

Thanks Scott Soperson for all the links, though some of them are cut off and we can't get to them. Hopefully you will return and hyperlink them (just highlight some words and click on the link button in the bottom right of the comment box).

Exploding myth of 1970s global cooling "consensus"

http://weblogs.marylandweather.com/2008/10/exploding_myth_of_1970s_global.html

Exploding the Myth of 1970s Global Cooling

i am not able to do the link button correctly for some reason.

The bill was introduced today.

Here's one related article

And another

Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act

With links to summaries and the complete bill.

you can use some of my links via copy and paste into your browser window.