The Melting Climate Change Deadline
Has cap-and-trade legislation stalled in the Senate?
Fri Sep. 11, 2009 2:40 AM PDT
Does cap-and-trade climate change legislation belong on the endangered species list? President Obama wanted to sign a measure before the international climate talks in Copenhagen in December. The House passed the Waxman-Markey bill in June, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid set a firm timetable for the Senate to follow suit. But now the Senate has jettisoned its deadline for the bill, and momentum to quickly pass legislation appears to be vanishing.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The earlier plan was for all six Senate committees with responsibility for writing cap and trade to mark up a bill by September 28—the deadline set by Reid that was already an extension from a previous target of September 10. To meet this goal, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee charged with writing the bulk of the legislation, initially said her panel would produce a bill and vote on it in early August. That didn't work out, but she promised the legislation would be done right after summer recess.
Now, not only is there still no bill, but talk of a concrete deadline has disappeared entirely. Boxer's panel will only commit to producing a bill—not voting on it—"later in September," according to a statement. Reid's office is even more vague, merely saying that the majority leader "fully expects the Senate to have ample time to consider this comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation before the end of the year."
"Chairs are very resistant to pointing to any kind of deadline," explains a senior Senate staffer involved in the process. "They've had a series of moving target deadlines that keep slipping and slipping. We're not talking about any more deadlines."
A major reason for the delay is, of course, the fracas over health care reform, which is also running behind schedule. The Senate Finance Committee is pivotal in health care negotiations but also claims responsibility for the allocation of pollution permits in cap and trade. Sen. Max Baucus, (D-Mont.) the committee's chair and the second-ranking Democrat on Boxer's panel, will play a critical role in the maneuvering over climate legislation. And he doesn't appear to be in any noticeable hurry. "As far as timing, really the best I can say is after health care," says the Senate Finance Committee's spokesman, Dan Virkstis.
Nor is health care the only issue threatening to crowd out cap and trade on the congressional agenda. "Financial services reform is coming up fast on the rail," says one Senate aide, noting that that could overtake the climate debate and push it back to "October and perhaps November." The Obama White House has signaled that it is more eager to proceed with financial regulation—an initiative, unlike cap and trade, that doesn't come with a big price tag.
Environmental groups contacted by Mother Jones maintain that the delay is no cause for panic. "I think there's still time to get this done by Copenhagen," says John Coequyt, the Sierra Club's senior Washington representative. Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defense Fund points to similarly discouraging moments when the Waxman-Markey bill was inching through the House. "Back then everyone was yelling and screaming about the stimulus and you didn't hear a whole lot about climate change. But that whole time Waxman and Markey were quite busy under the radar," he notes. "Then all of a sudden the bill was out of committee."
Kreindler adds that because Boxer's committee holds a 12-7 Democratic majority, it could vote out a bill at any time it chose, and argues that the delay is actually an encouraging sign that senators are taking the time to get the details right. That could certainly be part of the explanation. But another consideration is surely the formidable task of crafting legislation that will reduce carbon emissions but can also secure the votes of wavering Democrats in the wider Senate, particularly four centrists who have called for pushing back cap and trade until next year: Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln—who just took over the chair of the agriculture committee, which will also contribute to the bill.
Given all that, it's little wonder that Senate aides from committees that are working on cap and trade aren't brimming with confidence that a measure will move forward anytime soon. "I don't think anyone can predict [when a bill will emerge]," says one. "With all the other priorities, folks are wondering if we are ever going to get there."
Comments
Senate Delays Cap and Trade
Submitted by Frank (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 3:19 AM PDT.
Even though the Senate continues to delay discussions on the Waxman-Markey bill narrowly passed by the voice, Americans need to continue to voice their opinion. This legislation will result in lost jobs and increased energy prices for American households. Voice your opinion at http://tinyurl.com/klfut8.
The Melting Climate Change Deadline
Submitted by Klem (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 7:23 AM PDT.
Oh well if the Waxman bill does not achieve success this fall, the Copenhagen people can still discuss their plans to force nations to limit population growth and discuss what to do with all the money that is pouring in anyway. Aftet that I guess it's back to the old grind of shmoozing celebrities, limo rides, photo ops and goumet dinners. ..Sigh...
Environmentalism is a luxury
Submitted by Big Mac (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 12:06 PM PDT.
Environmentalism is a luxury good. The theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is going the way of good old Disco. Popular support has crashed, and scientific support is begining to waver. There has been no observed warming in over ten years. After the healthcare battle, does anyone think that the American public will support this madness?
You're kidding, right? I
Submitted by Jay Harris on Sun Sep. 13, 2009 5:18 PM PDT.
You're kidding, right? I mean, is "popular support" really the metric we care about here, susceptible as it is to disinformation and denier b.s..? And "scientific support is beginning to waver"? I don't think so, not with large pieces of the US (southern Texas, CA's Central Valley) shriveling up and LA county up in smoke (not that you necessarily care, and not that kind of smoke) -- the data is just confirming what the science has predicted for a couple of decades. If you want to push back, I suggest citing sources . . .
Democrats HAD once again
Submitted by Mike of Minnesota (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 12:25 PM PDT.
When are the left wing environmentalist's going to learn? The Democratic party takes your money, makes all the promises in the world, and then fold like a cheap suit due to extreme pressure from their Union backers. Need to form a Green party and make em sweat.
Right on! We have needed a
Submitted by MJ (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 1:33 PM PDT.
Right on! We have needed a three party system in this country for a long time. The present two party system is undermining the concept of a representative republic. The Greens can have NYC, OR, VT, MA and northern CA; Dems can have the unionized rust belt and the GOP gets the rest. Guess who is gonna run the show? No one. Gridlock. And that is a good thing. Perhaps it will hasten the day when we get real and partition the country into 3 or 4 autonomous regions where people of like mind can live together in harmony.
No, under your scenario the
Submitted by wgsalter (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 6:58 PM PDT.
No, under your scenario the Republicans would dominate.
You're probably correct.
Submitted by MJ (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 7:22 PM PDT.
You're probably correct. Can't let the GOP screw things up again. What we need is total gridlock so the corrupt politicians do nothing but a circle jerk. The more important issue is the extent to which we are so far from being a nation of like minded folks. Perhaps we just got too big. Seriously, what do those in Maine or Vermont have in common with those in Arizona or Texas. Nothing. The founders never envisioned a trans-contintental country. We have simply become too different and need to respectfully agree to disagree and go our separate ways. If Alaska wants to legalize recreational drugs, let them. It New Mexico wants to be officially bilingual, let them. If California wants to split and half become Marxist, let them. If Utah wants to allow polygamy, let them. We will all be better off.
I heard that all this situation about climate is false, to get out money for stupid projects.
________________
Buy A Dissertation
Editor For Dissertation
Free Dissertation Help
No! We can't wait UNTIL
Submitted by Jack Davis on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 12:49 PM PDT.
No!
We can't wait UNTIL Copenhagen! We have to get this done by Sunday, September 13, or there may be another ice age! As with the stimulus package (a failure; unemployment is higher than Obama said it would go if the stimulus package were not passed)...as with cash for clunkers (a failure, with car dealers YET to be paid)...as with health care (an overbloated failure in the making)...LET'S RUSH THINGS THROUGH.
We MUST have all of this done by September 13th, lest we all turn into pumpkins!
Hurry! There's not a moment to lose!
Considering the fact that
Submitted by get real (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 1:20 PM PDT.
Considering the fact that this has been the 32nd coolest summer on record for the US plus all the other facts and research that is coming out to disprove both an alarming trend of historical data and any real connection to human activities, one can only call any delay for further deliberation, a good thing.
Global Warming
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 1:54 PM PDT.
The next commenter is GAY and a TREE Hugger
This is true and Serious!!
Submitted by Mother Jones Alumn (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 1:58 PM PDT.
I've been reading mother jones for the last 13 years and cannot aggree more! We must act now to.........
How did you know I was .......
I am not gay or a tree hugger! the next poster is!!
Better never than late
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 2:01 PM PDT.
If cap and trade were to happen as desired--an 80 percent carbon reduction by 2050 world wide--as apposed to what will actually happen in reality, there might, repeat, might be a one tenth of a degree reduction in climate temperature, probably less. It's an absurd, meaningless gesture, with all the economic significance of pissing into the wind for the benefit of technocratic nerds.
What did you say?
Submitted by ????? (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 2:07 PM PDT.
Are you really a gay tree hugger?
Where is the link to ACORN on this site?
Coldest Summer...
Submitted by Bill Sanford (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 2:01 PM PDT.
Funny... here in the upper Midwest, we just had the coldest summer that I can recall... and almost a record for being cold. Summer, mind you.
I am sure you Global Warmers will say, "Its' just ONE cool Summer, you have to look at the big picture".
And when we had a warm summer a few years ago, and that 'big picture' argument was used by people AGAINST Global Warming, you said, "It is a trend... it is the direction where temperatures are going."
I guess the ends justify the justifications, in the Al Gore world.
?
Submitted by I just farted!!! (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 2:05 PM PDT.
Nope, the next one is.......
Does anyone read this garbage?
It's almost Happy hour! Wake up gay tree hugger!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this a conservative Website?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 2:10 PM PDT.
Well, is it?
Polar bear got your tongue?
Hello everyone
Submitted by verified, kind of verified, somewhat verified, certifiably (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 2:14 PM PDT.
Hey Mom! What's up Beth, Bill and Roy?
Go Cards!
Did you see my other posts!
I drink the juice!
I'm going green!
Save me Al Gore!
Is human methane worse then bovine methane?
Natural Cycles
Submitted by Parker (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 4:06 PM PDT.
The arctic ice had a large melt backs several times over the last 100 years. Check out the historic newspaper archives with articles about ships going through the usually frozen NW Passage.
Sat data shows average global temps are pretty much flat over the last 10 years.
The sun is currently setting new records for inactivity (few to no sunspots) - which has long been associated with global cooling.
And the far left still wants to destroy our economy by punishing energy use with Cap and Trade taxes?
Climate Change
Submitted by Meme Mine (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 4:08 PM PDT.
Global Warming proves that this waterhole of facts we all drink from, yes the Internet, is an open sewer of untreated information. Pick an opinion. Pick a winner every time.
But ultimately, when after 23 years this climate crisis not being personally observed or experienced, leaves logically to confirm the sweet reality that is in front of us all. We cannot make the grass greener or the sky bluer as we say a long forgotten farewell to the smoggy 1970’s when a river caught fire in Ohio USA. Life is good.
This modern day witch burning of promising death to our kids on a lifeless planet will be cursed in history or possibly even reverse the progress of civilization itself back to a new Dark Age of fear and ignorance.
This CO2 intimidation is not a sustainable theory for another 23 years so at least get ahead of the curve and encourage your family and friends to experience Nature, instead of constantly giving nature the last rites with this mass insanity of climate cowardice. Lead our children to the future with courage, not needless trepidation so we can all be responsible and progressive environmentalists, who preserve, protect and respect nature, not fear FOR nature.
CO2 intimidation? Fear for
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 5:35 PM PDT.
CO2 intimidation? Fear for nature? Little screwed up there, aren't you? No one is scared of CO2. When you see something before your eyes, you don't just blink and pretend it's not there!! It's not a matter of being scared. It's a matter of being AWARE, which you obviously are not. And fear for nature? That's really a joke! The earth has lasted for billions of years. Our planet isn't going anywhere, no, it's us HUMANS that are about to self destruct... just like we have in the past, many times before when we didn't pay attention to what the environmentalists warned us about... It's not a matter of being scared... it's a matter of knowing. Some of us know what's happening; most Americans are ignorant of the facts.
FOLLOW THE $$$$
Submitted by LEPER MESSIAH (not verified) on Mon Sep. 28, 2009 3:00 PM PDT.
iS IT GLOBAL WARMING? OR GLOBAL COOLING? OR JUST CLIMATE CHANGE NOW???
ONE THING IS FOR SURE, AL GORE AND HIS WALL STREET BUDDIES STAND TO MAKE A LOT OF $$$ ON YOUR FEAR.... WHICH THEY HAVE CAREFULLY CULTIVATED THROUGH THE MEDIA WHICH THEY OWN...INDUSTRY, ESPECIALLY IN CHINA WILL STILL POLLUTE, ONLY NOW THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BUY A PASS, CALLED CARBON CREDITS...i'M GREEN AND SO I ACT LOCALLY TO REDUCE MY OWN FOOTPRINT!!!
I DONT NEED A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATING ME AND THE REST OF MIDDLE AMERICA INTO TAXING AWAY THE PROBLEM...WHAT EVER IT IS...HUMAN ACTIVITY CONTRIBUTES 1/2 0F 1 PERCENT TO CARBON IN THE ENVIRONMENT, HOW CAN WE TAX THE OCEAN, THE REAL CULPRIT, @ 98% CARBON PRODUCTION GLOBALLY...PLANTS GROW GREENER IN A HIGHER CO2 ENVIRONMENT, MAKING MORE O2 4 US....KILL YOUR CAR...KILL YOUR TV...QUESTION THE CRAP U READ !!!!
Why do we need a climate change bill?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 4:32 PM PDT.
The earth has been cooling for the last 7-8 years. No denying it.
If anything, a cooler environment has prompted the California fires, not global warming.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1443386
Just watch.
While I applaud all efforts
Submitted by CTF (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 4:45 PM PDT.
While I applaud all efforts to address global climate change, the cap-and-trade system outlined in Waxman-Markey cannot both mitigate carbon emissions and protect the economy at the same time. Rather than a complex carbon trading system that would produce volatile energy prices, a growing number of U.S. economic and environmental leaders now support a straightforward, carbon tax — a policy that’s simple, transparent, and easy to administer. Moreover, the revenues from this approach can be recycled in tax relief for American families, protecting them and the overall economy. I hope that the Senate is not so married to a cap and trade system that they overlook other, more sensible, solutions.
Dems must get this right
Submitted by Buzz Belleville (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 4:48 PM PDT.
The Dems will be dropping the ball if they don't enlist McCain and the other moderate Repubs to help lead this charge. They've all proposed bills over the last several years. McCain et al can't NOT support these proposals just becaue of who the Prez is, can they? This is the politics lesson of the health care bill that Boxer et al needs yto learn heading into discussions on the climate bill. Get the GOP involved early, and get a few who have a vested interest in its success.
It doesn't matter if the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 5:19 PM PDT.
It doesn't matter if the bill is passed or not. We're never going to be able to do anything about it. Too many people (like most of these people who posted) who are either too dense to understand the situation or too lazy to read about it... or both.
Climate
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 5:57 PM PDT.
I read many unsourced or weakly sourced comments on this site, including Senator Inhofe's Lord Monckton who is not a scientist. How about siting peer-reviewed scientific reports:
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: www.NOAA.org
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: www.ipcc.ch/
• Scripps Intuitions of Oceanography: http://www.sio.ucsd.edu/
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology: http://web.mit.edu/
• U.S. Global Change Research Program: www.globalchange.gov/
• The National Academies: www.nationalacademies.org
They all agree this is a serious man-made problem.
Solutions include putting a significant price on carbon such as a revenue neutral carbon tax.
Skeptical
Submitted by Bill Sanford (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 6:10 PM PDT.
What's in it for them?
Frankly, I do not trust ANY university... Political Correctness has taken them over, and greed for research money trumps integrity. I worked as a Professional Staffer for a state university... they stink.
As we know good shoes can
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 6:58 PM PDT.
As we know good shoes can make you a good time .The ugg bootsare good choose.may be someone like nike shoes.Everyonemusthavedressthemselves.Sotiffany is a amazing for you.buted hardy will make you crazy.
Nuclear wins again according
Submitted by driver updates (not verified) on Sat Nov. 7, 2009 8:23 AM PST.
Nuclear wins again according to research by the IAEA. Lastly, nuke power produces no pollution, has a relatively small footprint, and contrary to your uniformed statement, is a very safe and proven technology.
the poster at 6:57pm has it
Submitted by zeldon (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 7:05 PM PDT.
the poster at 6:57pm has it right
Cap-and-trade is the "public option" of climate change legislation. something for everyone to get excited about that wont do what its supposed to do and will not destroy the economy. "The economy" based on polluting, air, sea and land and murder to obtain resources is cannibalizing itself. Yes, indeed there is global-warming and man's activities have contributed to such an extent that so called worst-case scenarios are more likely as positive feedbacks increase
(releases of methane e.g.).
Scientific arrogance
Submitted by Parker1227 (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 7:40 PM PDT.
That CO2 traps heat is true. What is not true is the claim that science has a strong grasp (understanding), of the vastly complex climate system of planet earth.
No one knows for sure just how much CO2 drives temperature change.
To tax consumers and businesses what will amount to trillions of dollars to try stop CO2 impact on temperature, when other unpredicted influences have already over-ridden any impact of CO2 - at least temporarily - is simply crazy.
Someone please show me the scientific "consensus" predicting the near complete blank-out of sunspots on the sun for the last 2.5 years?
And while you're at it - do some research on the Maunder Minimum, when the loss of sunspots correlated with strong global cooling.
rachel, wouldn't it be best
Submitted by sub (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 7:42 PM PDT.
rachel, wouldn't it be best if you addressed some truths about all this? like, without commitments from China and India it means NOTHING in terms of substantive reduction of man's contribution? or maybe address the idea that it's completely unknown whether man's contribution to this is impactive, or inconsequential. or maybe address the effect of livestock? increases in world population means more livestock to feed all those people means more emissions. i'm not leaning either way, it would just be great if it could be about substance, and not agenda. the US enviro lobby is all about agenda, zero about substantive debate. that's "debate." no one should have reached a conclusion, no matter how "inconvenient" that may be....
sub, nyc
Jack Davis, you kill me!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 7:47 PM PDT.
Jack Davis, you kill me! LMMFAO, love it.....
I have read some of the
Submitted by Noel Granite (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 8:04 PM PDT.
I have read some of the comments and I am happy to see that some of them are pushing for separate regions of civilization laid out through our 50 states.I think that is TRULY a progressive position(and I'm a libertarian who leans right) that as tough as the procedural steps to implement such an idea would be,i think it would be fantastic.Of course the environmentalists would still find fault as one sector would pollute another sector(air/water supply) but that is what war is for(only kidding).All the countries that we hear are happiest are also the most homogeneous.One thing to my friends on the left...you get to keep and house the Congressional Black Caucus.
I too am a right leaning
Submitted by MJ (not verified) on Sat Sep. 12, 2009 1:51 AM PDT.
I too am a right leaning libertarian. I do not think the "Provincial Partition" idea, as I like to call it is liberal, conservative or centrist -- and because of this, I think it could actually be a unifying force, of sorts, that would lead to greater respect between those who have (increasingly) divergent ideological beliefs. Perhaps this is just a natural outcome of our nation maturing. It certainly happened in Western Europe -- there were many "empires" that ultimately dissolved, yet for the most part they get along now. At least they are not so acromonious as we are becoming. I see our country sort of like a good marriage that had its run, raised its kids and so forth .. now it is time for an amicable, uncontested divorce where the ex's stay friendly, but simply can no longer live together.
Climate has changed and
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 8:32 PM PDT.
Climate has changed and always will change. Greenland is called Greenland for historical reasons. Get used to it!
Greenland is called
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Sep. 14, 2009 3:10 PM PDT.
Greenland is called Greenland because of some false advertising in the 9th century real estate market.
Cap and Trade represents the
Submitted by alwyr (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 8:44 PM PDT.
Cap and Trade represents the largest tax in history ($2,500 per household, per annum). All based on a false premise (global warming). Al Gore (who has made over $86million this year alone selling carbon credits to fools) is not complaining, mind you. BTW: The value of carbon credits in London today are less (per share) than Zimbabwe's currency. Go figure.
Taxman Malarkey Bill
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 9:11 PM PDT.
The reason this legislation is getting slow rolled by the Senate is that they recognize it for the train wreck it is. The American people do not want it.
Senator's decision
Submitted by dennisbussey on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 11:19 PM PDT.
Here is the bottom line question all US Senators will need to answer.
Would you favor a US effort to “save the planet” from global warming even if there was no possibility of success, and it was certain the USA would be economically handicapped because of the effort?
Dennis Bussey, San Diego
Five Easy Pieces:
Submitted by Arch (not verified) on Sat Sep. 12, 2009 12:42 AM PDT.
First, cap & trade is a massive energy tax that will have no effect on atmospheric CO2. Not only should Americans expect gasoline to climb to $5 per gallon, it will stay there as long as cap & trade remains. Prices for electricity will also increase by 80%. Increasing taxes (even stealth taxes such as cap & trade) during a severe recession will deepen and prolong the downturn.
Second, expect inflation. Prices of all goods and services will be passed along their consumers - us. The alternative is to move production off shore where the is no energy tax. Congress will, by passing cap & trade, be exporting more American jobs to China.
Third, CO2 is neither s pollutant nor a cause of global warming. It is a naturally occurring atmospheric trace gas, essential to life. CO2 levels rise 800 to several thousands of years after warming. For a factor to be causal, it must, by definition, precede the result. CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause.
Fourth, human activity contributes little of the 168 billion metric tons (BMT) of CO2 added to the atmosphere annually. Warming oceans add 100 BMT. Respiration adds 30 BMT, and decaying biomass another 30 BMT. 1 BMT is released during forrest fires and another BMT by industrial processes including smelting, baking, distilling and wine making. Fossil fuels release only 6 BMT.
Finally, Earth is a large, highly complex, self organizing, stochastic system, the workings of which are not well understood. Today's average temperature of 15° C and CO2 levels of 380 parts per million are relatively low in the past 600 million years. The Ordovician Mass Extinction 440-450 million years ago (mya) was an ice age with CO2 levels of 4,000 ppm. 540 mya, CO2 was at 7,000 ppm and temperature 21° C. Why did the planet not burn up?
In summary, cap & trade is a large job killing tax levied in a severe recession which will destroy our economy and benefit the environment not at all. The scientific rationale is fatally flawed and the computer predictions, invalid. Man is neither the cause nor the solution to climate change. We are passengers on this big blue marble. Let's enjoy the ride.
Look, not to worry. All the
Submitted by cedarhill (not verified) on Sat Sep. 12, 2009 1:53 AM PDT.
Look, not to worry. All the things pending will be shoved into the reconciliation budget thingy. Health care, cap-and-trade, tax changes, comprehensive immigration, fairness doctrine, final 2010 census numbers, etc., etc. Schedule looks to be next month. That will be well ahead of Copenhagen. It's a great strategy. Even if they freeze Congress afterwards everything worthwhile will be done. Even if the House is lost in 2010 elections, everything worthwhile will be done. There's plenty of cover with the economy worsening, unemployment at historic highs, nukes in Iran, Afghanistan crumbling and about to sit down and sign something with North Korea.
Best of all Obama still will have three years to implement what is passed in October regardless of how the elections come out. By then, we'll have all the illegals registered. So by 2012, the GOP will just be overwhelmed. Be patient. This is all just a sideshow leading to the endgame.
air quality
Submitted by yooper2 (not verified) on Sat Sep. 12, 2009 4:38 AM PDT.
Any attempt to address emissions without promotion of nuclear power is foolish.
Nuclear Power is the most
Submitted by Gabe (not verified) on Sun Sep. 13, 2009 5:40 AM PDT.
Nuclear Power is the most expensive AND dangerous alternative for energy production on the planet. What's needed is a MASSIVE increase in federally funded research into clean power technologies. This is an imperative even IF there were no such thing as global warming. Least we forget about the looming worldwide crisis of peak oil!
Gabe: you are incorrect on
Submitted by Barry on Tue Sep. 15, 2009 7:37 PM PDT.
Gabe: you are incorrect on both counts.
Nuclear power, on a $/Megawatt basis is much cheaper than any other electrical energy source. Consider what a Megawatt of wind power costs to build, then consider that wind turbines operate at about 15% capacity factor. A nuke plant runs at 95% capacity factor. So it takes about 7 times the wind turbine capacity to equal a nuke plant...in other words, it would take 14,000 megwatts of wind turbine power to equal on 2000 megawatt nuke plat. Then throw in the reliability factor and so-called clean energy is a loser.
Consider grams of carbon used per megawatt of electricity throughout the entire lifecycle. Nuclear wins again according to research by the IAEA. Lastly, nuke power produces no pollution, has a relatively small footprint, and contrary to your uniformed statement, is a very safe and proven technology.
I fear you like many other ill-informed people connect nuclear power to nuclear weapons. A nuclear power plant cannot explode like a nuclear bomb. The uranium fuel is far too low of enrichment. Chernobyl was a steam explosion and not a fission or fusion event.
Gabe... check the facts before you make wild claims you are only repeating from activists that need a boogey man to convince you to send them money.
Cause of climate change
Submitted by bserina (not verified) on Sat Sep. 12, 2009 9:28 AM PDT.
CO2 based climate change can be explained in terms of simple physics.
To all of you who took physics: CO2 has absorption lines in the infrared.
Read no further.
To those of you who are not students of physics, here is my explanation.
When the sun (visible light which passes through CO2 molecules) shines on anything but a reflective surface, some of it gets converted to heat. This, of course, heats up the surface, and some of the heat escapes as infrared radiation. (See: hold your hand over a hot frying pan.)
This radiation is invisible (infrared or below red) but still contains a lot of the energy supplied by the sun.
If this infrared radiation radiates off a near-horizontal surface it will head straight for space.
The problem comes in if the ray of infrared encounters a CO2 molecule.
The molecule will capture it. After a short time the molecule will radiate a ray that is equal to that captured (for a balance of energy). The infrared ray that was headed for space now is being reradiated in an unknown direction, which means that there is a possibility that it will head back to earth, warming it.
Simple, huh?
Your science is simple and correct, but incomplete. You should also mention the fact that a far larger impact on atmospheric heat absortion is caused by another atmospheric gas... water vapor. Should we have "cap and trade" on water vapor, too?
Flag of the world.
Submitted by Francesco Sinibaldi (not verified) on Sat Sep. 12, 2009 11:46 AM PDT.
It's beautiful,
for me, to
speak about
the dream of
a tired book,
with a noise
in my heart
that stands in
the melody like
a starry behaviour.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
