Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Senate Drops Bill to Cap Carbon Emissions
Plan to charge large polluters abandoned in favour of narrower legislation focusing on increasing firms' liability for oil spills
Under pressure from falling popularity ratings, Barack Obama had hoped the bill would add to the two biggest legislative successes of his presidency: the comprehensive health care bill and reform of the US banking and financial sector.
Senate Democrats abandoned plans to pass an energy bill that caps emissions of carbon dioxide, saying Republicans refuse to support the measure. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) Democrats have been trying to pass a plan that charges power plants, manufacturers and other large polluters for their carbon dioxide emissions, the leading contributor to global warming, for more than a year. But it ran into opposition from Republican senators, as well as Democrats eager not to jeopardise their chances in November's midterm elections.
Republicans said the bill would create a "national energy tax", warning costs would be passed to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills and fuel costs that would lead manufacturers to take their factories overseas, putting jobs at risk.
The failure to pass sweeping energy legislation is likely to weaken the US negotiating position heading into the international climate negotiations in Mexico at the end of the year.
Democrats hope to instead pass a narrower energy bill next week that would increase the liability of companies for oil spills in the light of public anger towards BP over the Gulf of Mexico disaster.
Senate majority leader Harry Reid said the reason for abandoning the attempt to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill was simple: "We know we don't have the votes."
He said no Republican senator was willing to back the bill but maintained that the narrower legislation would still be "a step forward".
"Number one, we're going to hold BP accountable to ensure that they clean up their mess," he said. "Hopefully, we can stop [accidents] from ever happening, but if they do, there will be a process to move forward."
The bill would also boost energy efficient homes and provide incentives to convert many of America's large trucks from diesel to natural gas.
Senator John Kerry, the Democrat who was lead sponsor of the now-abandoned climate bill, was hopeful that carbon emissions would eventually be capped. He noted that it took more than two decades for Congress to approve a health care bill championed by his friend and fellow Massachusetts senator, the late Ted Kennedy.
"This is not going to take close to that long," he said. "I am absolutely confident that as the American people make their voices heard, and as our colleagues go home and listen to them we're going to grow in our ability to be able to pass this." White House energy adviser Carol Browner said Obama still supported a comprehensive bill that included a cap on carbon emissions but also backed Reid's decision to go forward with a narrower bill.
Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, warned that the country would pay a "high price" if the Senate failed to curb carbon emissions.
"Too many senators are listening to polluters instead of the American public," he said. "Too many senators have learned nothing from the Gulf disaster and the high price we pay when oil lobbyists dictate our energy laws."
- Posted in
63 Comments so far
Show AllDems Cave, Offer
Flimsy Climate Bill
what a pompous headliine by the arrogant left wing holier than thoughs
you guys help nothing except to make sure more republicans get elected
did you know they need 60 votes and didn't have them so they tried to pass what they could
so macho guys, if you can do better, run for office and do better
... ps there are lots of liberals and progressives who have compassion and understand the limits of our public servants,
they have discriminationa nd see the differences
you concrete thinkers can only classify them as all bad or all good
mostly all bad so you can feel superior to them
In the last, thin-Republican-majority congress, the Republicans never seemed to worry about needing 60 senate votes when pushing through their destructive agenda for the Rich. Why?
This is not a rhetorical question (not for you anyway), so please answer it.
And, as far as running for office, we'd like to, but in my state (PA) the Democrats brutally eject from the ballot all primary challengers and all Green party candidates in the general election.
They do this through often-illegal (use of public funds) and utterly contemptable and dishonest means - rejecting ballot petetion signatues for the most absurdly minor and trivial typographical errors and ambiguities - backed by crooked and bought judges. Then, they get the crooked judges to fine the Greens, Nader, or primary challengers the tens of thousands of dollar costs of the petition-scouring (in additions to the use of public funds - google "bonusgate").
We all know what the Republicans are - they are reactionary thugs and they pretend to be nothing else.
But the Democrats are filthy, vile, lying, scheming traitors of progress and enemies of democracy.
Now, please go away.
you don't get it
as you describe, it is hard for well intentioned people to get elected, and they have to make compromises too
trashing them and pulling support gets the republicans elected
going against what I presume are your hopes for the country
"they are all the same" is exactly what the republicans are hoping we say, they orchestrate this
Do you support democrats and their countless war crimes?
No, you are the one who doesn't get it.
Your argument against voting for a Third Party candidate, supporting the Dems at all cost, is so filled with holes and denial it scarcely merits a response.
You believe that anything other than supporting The Dems will only guarantee we get a Republican? Are you even awake!?
Open your eyes! We get a Republican regardless of whom we vote for.
As to the absurd notion the Democrats support working people in any way, shape or form it is precisely the treacherous Democratic savagery against the working class -- again NAFTA, CAFTA, genocide via welfare reform and the Medicare Prescription Drug Lord Benefit, re-imposition of indentured servitude via bankruptcy reform -- all that has put so much more money in the hands of the corporate ruling class they now have untold extra billions to divert into the reunification of capitalism and theocracy.
Wake up!
Any sentient being would vote against ALL Republicans (whether they wear Democratic or Republican labels).
No, YOU don't get it. Did you bother to read my post? Joining a criminal enterprise is not "making compromises".
If the path of progress is a detour through Republican hell, so be it.
At any rate, absent tough climate measures, and with the Democratic White House working to sabotage any possible international agreement at Cancun this December, humanity as we know it, and most other species on earth are doomed anyway.
Whew! Is that smell from leaking methane at the oil wells, or is it coming from from the halls of congress?
It's all too familiar:
1. Dire problem needing immediate action receives
2. Modest public attention and subsequent political pressure leading to
3. Modest attempts by Obama and handful of leftish legislators who offer inadequate but not totally empty solution;
4. Supposed cliffhanger final vote is accompanied by
5. Republican fear-mongering and misrepresentation of the situation while
6. Dems claim they don't have the votes and quit trying so that
7. Emasculated and largely useless "reform" legislation passes, whereupon
8. 'Liberal' legislators promise further "reform' in the future,
9. Obama claims victory, and
10. We all lose.
The failure of the Congress to restrict the size of "too big to fail" banks and other companies, the failure to pass a public option (or single payer) for health care funding, and the failure to cap carbon emissions all illustrate the fact that democracy cannot work in a society where 75% of the over-18 population is stuck in permanent adolescence.
When that 75% are left uneducated about the need for bank regulation, the "right" to health care, and the dire consequences of failing to stop our biggest polluters, and instead are treated to the Lindsay Lohan "tragedy" between commercials designed to make us "feel" and "look" younger by eating giant burgers and taking anti-coagulant drugs while ALWAYS root-root-rooting for the home team, then yes, I suppose you're right.
The Democrats have majorities in both the House and Senate, but they are too cowardly and divided to actually do anything, and, as usual, reelection is paramount.
Global warming and environmental destruction may destroy our civilization in the long run, but the next election is always just around the corner and constitutes a perfect reason for not doing anything. Pandering to ignorant voters will always be with us.
I did get a good laugh out of "Holier than thoughs". Is "thoughs" the plural of "thou"? Somehow, I don't think so.
Jim Shea
The corporations fund the election campaign of both political parties and provide lobbying jobs for politicians who are out of office. Why would Democrats do anything against the corporations?
Cowardly? Hah!
Did you see how fast they acted against Sherrod.
No, the Democrats are doing what they do best -
dropping to their knees when they smell money in the room.
The voters aren't so ignorant that they haven't noticed that this administration and this President haven't done anything but impose more burdens on the American people while ignoring the real problems we all face. They also have noticed their inexperience and incompetence.
Why would anyone trust these clowns, they also have no trust in the scientist's and Gore's of the world who puffed their information. So the democrats are correct. They don't have the votes to do anything because the American people overwhealmingly oppose any climate legislation at this time.
Its what they call political reality.
YES, those evil, scheming, socialist, athiest scientists!!!
And, can you list these "burdens"?
And what are the "real problems"?
As to the Gores and Scientists, they were caught puffing their information so it would have more imp[act, in Gores film a couple of pure lies. Thats what people perceive. Do you think there is a great clamor among the Americans for climate legislation? I don't see it and thats why I think it's not there.
Please get over the idea that if someone says something about "how" things are, its not an "attack" on that thing.
The burdens:
1. A continuation of Bush economic policies
2. A continuation of Bush's war
3. A "stimulus" bill that was anything but by anyone's measurement.
4. A budget bill so filled with pork that it needed a pigstye (where it came from)
5. A Health Care bill that raises costs to everyone, leaves more people without coverage after than before, benefits only the medical industry and insurance companies and killed reakl HC reform for another decade or so. Bye-bye Single Payer thanks to Obama and Pelosi.
6. A "Finance Reform Bill" that is anything but. It deals with little that matters .
Thats just the highlights.
The Real Problems:
1. A refusal to reregulate the economy, to reinstate the laws (glass-stegall for example), regulations and oversight needed to return us to a capitalist economic system rather than the "free" market system we have now.
2. A refusal to change trade policies like NAFTA, etc that benefit other countries and Corporations instead of Americans.
3. A refusal to change tax policies that favor off shoring and moving our industrial base to other countries.
4. A continuation of the war in Afghanistan that benefits no one
5. A refusal to cut spending across the board.
6. The lack of medical care for people that need it.
7. The continuation of governments refusal to protect the Americasn worker.
Thank-you.
Aside from your climate science remarks, I agree with all of your points, except the "refusal to cut spending" which is inconsistent with some of your other points, like promoting single-payer healthcare and lack of medical care. At the state level it is particularly disasterous. The anti-spending people here in Pennsylvania will guarantee that we have fully third-world-style infrastructure and public transit in a just few more years.
The obvious alternative to cutting spending is, besides getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and other places of course, to tax the rich at the levels we did in the prosperous 1950's - 1960's.
But, can you give me a case of where the scientists are "puffing their information"? There is a whole class of climate skeptics the media ignores entirely, the skeptics who point out the IPCC predictions are not nearly "puffed up" enough! There are low-probability scenarios - but still much more probable than the earthquakes and storms engineers must design for in structures - that will wipe out humanity. Like I wrote earlier, if engineers designed a dam the way climate scientists predict climate, the dam would have 50% chance of failure, but instead of just a few hundred people dying, this "dam", called "business as usual", threatens the lives of 5 billion people.
The IPCC is a very good example. They were not very careful in their process nor in checking some of the claims made. The Indian gentleman whose name escapes me at the moment.
"like promoting single-payer healthcare and lack of medical care"
I would argue that Single Payer would cut spending as surely as Obamacare will raise it.
Consider the required and unfunded increase in Medicaid spending by the states (Texas and Alaska I'm proud to say didn't fall for the Federal worm of cash last year). Increased spending that provides less care. Where do all these new medicaid people get their medical care? Insurance or even government paid services is no guarantee of care.
I don't think that "spending" per se gets you anything in any case. We have just spent a ton of money, see any benefit from it? I don't. Though I do see a number of large companies, banks and Transnationals benefitting from it greatly.
I see no reason not to tax personal income at higher rates. Or Corporations either. We DO have the highest Corporate tax rates in the world, but what they forget to mention is that when they finish using all the deductions, loopholes and special considerations...our Corporations pay no more and many times less than the rate around the world. But we need to restore the economic rules too.
Yes, this administration is being seen for their inexperience and incompetence. Time and time again we see their not having what it takes to run this country and because we seem to have no one in power who has moral courage we continue to see one right after another play the political game to the end that nothing continues to get done and our country continues to march on our sucide path. It is like pod people took over our government in 1963 and one right after another sold their country and their fellow countrymen down the river for their politcal games. Democrats or Republicans they are one in the same. Yes, why would anyone TRUST those who continue to LIE to us?
I don’t think the scientsts or Al Gore lied to the American people about the reality of climate change facing the world. The real people who lied are the corporations who spent so much money to brainwash governments and people to believe that climate change is not real. That they can continue on the same path and not have to worry about the effects.
Al Gore’s first book helped to open my eyes. I will always be grateful that he got me started on the path to really look at this issue. We all make mistakes as recent studies are showing that the false information was if anything didn’t go far enough on just how fast everything is happening.
If we have any chance of a future, we must find people with the moral backbone to FIGHT and the moral courage to tell the TRUTH. Vote all those out of office who have sold their soul for a few pieces of silver. Vote Green!!! We the people must have the courage to vote for third party candidates and Independents.
"It is like pod people took over our government in 1963 and one right after another sold their country and their fellow countrymen down the river for their politcal games"
Loved that! Pod people indeed!!
Gore got caught in a couple of lies in his film, the other guys, scientific reports just puffed some of their data occasionally to add emphasis, to provide a bit more urgency, pretty much usual politics, but it all came out at the wrong time, thats what generated the situation now.
I don't think there are that many people that refute the fact of climate change anymore, its the Man Made they are not sure of, but most of all I think no one (including me) wants to do something if its not going to have a real measurable effect. So far no one has that kind of plan.
The problem with Third Party amnd Independents is there is very little chance for them to have an impact, let alone win. If every progressive voted for one of them you'd get 3-4%, if you added every liberal vote you'd be up to 27-30%. Not enough
"But most of all I think no one (including me) wants to do something if its not going to have a real measurable effect. So far no one has that kind of plan."
That sure is a defeatist attitude.
Unless you know of a plan that I don't, its again, simply a statement of the current situation.
Dems "abandon" progressive change and the GOP oppose it. If both always end up in the same place, what's the difference?
The Democratic Party has got to be the worst political party in human history.
Eisenhower was fucking dead. He was old but not just. He came across as some foolish old uncle who repeated platitudes that didn't quite make sense. They used to limit the amount of time that he spent on TV and radio because it was bound to become embarrassing.
Nixon came across as a buffoon. He had facial ticks and odd mannerisms aplenty. Nobody could watch the SOB for more than a few minutes and not feel for their wallet. They say he was cunning but he came across psychotic.
Ronald Reagan was the dumbest fucker that I have ever seen run for any office anywhere. The mythology they have built around him is all wrong. He didn't even look like he meant it when he was repeating the most reactionary of slogans. I think he started out stupid and got "sick" a decade before he ran for office. He also had bad hair and a silly expression that would get him beat up in a nursing home.
Bush was impossibly bourgeois. He was the anti-FDR or the anti-Kennedy - they were supposed to be the "approachable" bourgeois. Bush's made up accent always sounded like he was about to say, "bring the car around". And, he had been the head of the secret police.
The younger Bush - what can you say? Who can really, honestly say that they didn't know what was coming.
Think about it, can you really blame the Democrats? The assholes above just could not get elected to city alderman. Even if all politics have become irrelevant in U.S. elections and they promote "personalities" alone, these characters are dead losers. There is no voting scam broad enough, no media conspiracy deep enough, no right-wing core in America reactionary enough, and thus, no possible explanation for these events.
And then I got to thinking... who does this reflect on?
The Democratic Party has got to be the worst political party in human history.
But then I got to thinking... it is not possible to have a political party that bad. It must be something else.
It's all one party. There is no greater evil. There is no lesser evil. There are only auxiliary subdivisions of the same evil.
If you support the Dems you support that evil and you too are complicit in all their crimes.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
They are ALL soulless! They have no moral compass what-so-ever.
Utterly controlled by their masters and not by anything they see with
their own eyes much less what the citizens want? Citizens? Who? Wha?
The "US Citizens" have been slaughtered/eliminated only consumers are left!
You want your world back? you want your country back? you want your childrens future back?
It lives on the other side of dismantling this government through millions of us protesting and civil disobedience.
Either that or prepare for full blown corporate tyranny.
Revolution is the ONLY solution!!!
See you in the streets!
BwaHahahaha! It's time to bring out the Robot Catz!
LOL
>^^<
A Failed climate bill, an ecological disaster in the Gulf, war and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no meaningful move to alternative energy would lead one to believe that Washington does not have an energy policy.
But actually, there is an energy policy in Washington.
That policy is maximum profits for energy corporations including the likes of British BP.
But wealth does not materialize from thin air. In the case of oil, the corporations are riding on the backs of the American people. But how else could an ugly hair-lip sociopath like Lee Raymond of Exxon make $400 Million in ten years ? He spent much of his career creating scientific false front organizations to counter global warming science. Way to go Exxon ! And now Exxon has contracts in Iraq compliments of the American military and the taxpayer.
The $4 Trillion dollars of public money, or rather public debt, that has been wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan is to subsidize the future profits of major oil corporations. Being a form of corporate cancer, Big Oil is feeding on the American public to sustain endless growth for private investors. And of course the military industrial complex is along for the ride, at our expense, providing military muscle for Big Oil while making new enemies for America every day.
In the case of the Gulf and BP, the deregulation of risky deep offshore drilling was purchased with campaign donations to Obama and members of Congress, although this process began with the Bush regime. The idea was with no Federal oversight, BP could save money on drilling costs. But greed and stupidity created a disaster beyond belief and now BP faces losses as well as the American public.
On the other side of the world in Iraq and Afghanistan, the situation appears to be just as bleak. Corporate control of oil in Iraq (as well as banking) will require a perpetual occupation. Iraq is unlikely to run out of oil in this century.
And if the trans-Afghan pipelines are ever built, this will require an endless occupation at the taxpayer's expense in order to exploit the oil and natural gas of Central Asia.
The sad and criminal truth is that oil from Central Asia via Afghanistan will not be shipped to American markets. And we also import very little oil from Iraq with most of our imports coming from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela and other non-Middle East sources.
The idea that we are completely dependent on Middle East oil is a myth, but the U.S. military has been used to protect American corporate interests in the Middle East for most of the 20th century. Business as usual today.
Corporate welfare is never a pretty picture, especially when it involves crimes against humanity while bankrupting the Federal budget.
"Barack Obama had hoped the bill would add to the two biggest legislative successes of his presidency: the comprehensive health care bill and reform of the US banking and financial sector."
Not to worry, I can guarantee you that anything Barry and the dims in congress enact will do as much for the lower 99% as the 2 aformentioned "big legislative successes."
This new cave in by the Democrats in Congress doesn’t surprise me. It is just another example of why many Greens feel the Democrats have no real backbone. Wimps is what they are. They seem to lack the moral courage to stand for their principles. Vote Green in 2010!!
They have no principles, Chrisy58 as I have been saying for at least the last 10 years. The U.S. Congress is not Republicans and Democrats but almost entirely made up of nothing but corrupt, attorneys for the American corportocracy calling themselves Republicans and Democrats. That is why I have been voting and supporting third party candidates for a long time. I tried to tell as many people as I could, that Obomba was just another con job, but alas, to no avail, as many said they were voting against McCain and the pistol, packin mama from Alaska. But now many of these same people say they wasted their vote and admit they were conned by Obomba! I would hope to see third party candidates gain strength in 2012. Paul
Scum, they are all scum ! We do need to fight, and take it to the streets. The stupid (or so I thought) Tea Partiers get heard, get what they want, even though they are suicidel, this Country needs to be attacked from outerspace or something !
The Democrats don't understand that they are in trouble because they are not doing what they were elected to do - and that is to make the changes that are necessary for this country to once again become a country of 'we, the people'.
We needed health care for all - not a bill that kept in place the old way of doing things and increased the roles of an insurance industry that is in no way providing health care for anyone - only lining their pockets.
We needed financial regulation - not a bailout for the banks that allowed big bonuses to be paid.
We needed the wars stopped - not a continuation of 'blowing' up more money.
We needed a new, clean energy policy not based on the dirty energies of coal and oil - not a slap on the hands to the oil or coal industry when lives are lost or the ecology destroyed.
And with all of this - the country still needs jobs, jobs, and more jobs and nothing is being done that helps us to once again become a country that produces instead of country of consumption and paper-pushing.
Unfortunately, the people are now so mad, that I'm afraid they will put the Republicans back in power - and they know how to pass legislation that will add to the profits and power of the corporations - not the people.
The Democrats, who I supported, have done nothing right.
It's so frustrating to even try to push through climate legislation in the United States because of the acres of political hoops that you need to jump through to put anything together. Just look at the comments for this article, besides the general hate being spewed on all sides of the political spectrum, no one has yet to make a point about climate change or the bill. We need wake up and realize that governmental, non-partisan regulation of emissions industries is the only way that we can improve our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign entities.
Visit lesscarbonmorejobs.com to see how renewable jobs can improve the country.
It's hard to forgive ignorance.
Was at a dinner party recently with a bunch of older, white collar professionals, tree huggers all. When the subject of energy efficient light bulbs and recycling came up the engineer noted that all the efforts that all the tree huggers in the U.S. are very quickly undone when one Chinese power plant comes online. What we do is peanuts in comparison. He certainly wasn't advocating that we stop doing what we're doing, but his point helped put everything in perspective.
A bit of truth never goes amiss. Thanks.
Actually, China is in many ways leader in reducing carbon emisions. They have some very ambitious wind and solar energy programs, as well as large scale hydro and nuclear. Agree with some of these or not, they are very low carbon sources of energy.
They also have the world's highest fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. They are also leaders in lithium battery and electric vehicle development. Many Chinese city streets are full of electric scooters and electric assist bicycles.
I have two such scooters, and although they needed some work to bring them up to western expectations of workmanship and performance, thay are a blast to ride and cost less thn a penny a mile in "fuel".
Unfortunately the rapidly improving living standards of 1.3 billion people means that their fossil fuel usage will continue to increase for a while - but not nearly as rapidly as it would if China was on a US-style path of development.
SaboCat, I always find a glib mention of China and India WITHOUT EVER referring to per-capita consumption as amusing and disingenuous. That said, I have to say that the "path of development" chosen by China and India are unfortunately not very encouraging - despite China's investments in renewable energy, higher fuel economy standards, etc. These are among the biggest markets for every major car manufacturer - so much so that these markets do a great deal to prop up their bottom-line. The misplaced emphasis on expanding roads and freeways over railways and other public transport is a serious cause for concern. It almost makes you wonder - who is driving their policies? One this is clear - it is the elite in these countries that are in control. An elite that is increasingly and ever more tightly getting entangled in global capitalism, with the inevitable consumerist approach. And the increased consumption of meat and dairy is also not a good sign - although the levels have not reached those of Europe or North America.
Just to remind people when I mention "per capita" so they don't just talk of the total population, I also point to the historical fact of migrations (conquest, colonization, and just plain migration) from European countries into three whole CONTINENTS and parts of Africa. What would happen if all the white people are packed back into Europe and all the overseas Chinese and Indians are put back in their respective countries? Hint: maybe not much change for China and India.
This is why I think not adhering to the commitments under the Kyoto Protocol by certain countries and the deliberate sabotaging of the Copenhagen meeting (that was supposed to adopt a successor treaty to Kyoto, with even greater targets for emission reduction) was criminal. Full compliance with Kyoto (that primarily demanded a MODEST reduction below 1990 levels by the rich countries that have historically polluted the most) would have ensured greater willingness on the part of the developing countries (and greater leverage on them too) to commit to emission reduction. Instead, what happened was that the Harper government in Canada and others were pointing at China and India, which in turn have no doubt whatsoever about the intentions of the rich countries - "so why bother?", seems to be their current approach.
I appreciate your observtions. It goes without saying that per capita carbon emissions in China are just a quarter to fifth of those in the US.
I didn't know that China was emphasizing highway construction over rail construction. They are doing some innovative passenger rail development too - like their pressurized-cabin trains over the mountains to Lhasa and their Shanhai Maglev.
The "why bother" attitude is seen from whole nations down to some of the comments seen here today. It doesn't look good.
SaboCat, this is where we part company - although it pains me to say so :)
While you may look at the train to Lhasa as a benign (or at least neutral) development, many see it as a vital part of "integrating" Tibet more firmly within China. It would be a different matter if the Tibetan people themselves desired such connectivity. So now more Han Chinese can travel and settle there with greater ease, and troop movements would become easier and faster.
Sorry about the diversion. I would still point out the low per-capita consumption to those that want to play some clever numbers game, but right now, I do not see a deliberate move towards sustainability on the part of China. I have NO doubt that it is partly a fault of the rich countries that did not meet their modest targets under Kyoto Protocol, and therefore were in no position to influence other countries.
>>>I didn't know that China was emphasizing highway construction over rail construction.
In terms of expressways alone, "The total length of China's expressways is 65,065 km at the end of 2009, the world's second longest only after the United States and roughly equals that in Canada, Germany, and France combined. In 2009, 4,719 km of expressways were added to the network." - From Wikipedia
I have to say, though, that China has expanded its railway network too, and it seems to have overtaken India in both the total route length and track length (even though India had a head start here because of what the British had built).
>>>European Historian wrote: What we do is peanuts in comparison....his point helped put everything in perspective.
Well, a more helpful perspective could be to think in terms of per-capita electricity consumption:
Canada: 16,279 kWh per capita (2006)
Qatar: 15,939 kWh per capita (2006)
Kuwait: 15,211 kWh per capita (2006)
USA: 12,924 kWh per capita (2007)
Australia: 10,721 kWh per capita (2006)
Germany: 6,663 kWh per capita (2006)
UK: 5,773 kWh per capita (2006)
Brazil: 2,117 kWh per capita (2006)
China: 2,179 kWh per capita (2006)
India: 466 kWh per capita (2006)
I'm sure the numbers for China, India and Brazil would have increased in the last few years - but it shouldn't alter their relative positions by much.
And if you shift that part of the electricity consumed in manufacturing in China onto the countries that import stuff from there (proportionately, of course), that would help in getting the big picture.
And when we look at the cumulative emissions AND the per-capita share starting from around 1800, we'll surely get some interesting "perspective". Perhaps interesting for some people, and maybe not for others.
>>>ShadowDancer wrote: So regardless of what you do in your Nation your not going to stop other Nations at all.
That seems to be a bit of a premature complaining - considering that the USA (and Canada) have done next to nothing to reduce their emissions. So to say "regardless of what you do" is meaningless.
Also, if your nation had taken the first, MODEST step in reducing emissions, you would realize that it would have greater leverage in convincing others to do likewise. That was the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997.
While a lot of manufacturing got moved to China and elsewhere, the total emissions (and the per-capita emissions too) INCREASED in countries like the USA, Canada, etc. Why is that? And logically, the corresponding share of the emissions in other countries that manufacture products to be shipped back to the USA should be added to the USA's account too.
'Senator John Kerry...noted that it took more than two decades for Congress to approve a health care bill...'
don't worry, by that time we'll all be swim'n with the fishies
or baking in a pan
Why does government bother anyway? Let the people handle global warming without interference from the government and big business. Most of the polluters are big businesses who government interferes for. The climate change bill does nothing to change that.
So, are you suggesting that individual initiative alone will address the problem?
I am a poster child for such individual efforts myself, and I am accomplishing doodly squat - becasue everyone else around me is doing nothing.
It is amazing that I have to explain how this works, but problems like AGW and other large-scale threats are only solved by getting everyone to work working together on the problem. This requires laws and regulations, so everyone works toward a common goal, and to prevent cheating.
"Many hands make work light" as the Amish say, while their communities raise big barns in a single day without machinery.
Only in the USA, with the zeitgeist of Ayn Rand stalking the land, is this not obvious.
I think you are correct for the most part. The problem arises in the fact that you cannot impose or require agreement for these large scale threats or problems. Everyone MUST agree to the actions taken.
When government goes against the vast majority of public opinion you get the Health Care fiasco or its like.
Well, they certainly did in the case of World War II. The task is to find a way to convince the public that this more serious than Hitler or the Japanese, but the solutions not only don't require sacrifice, but actually improve quality of peopes lives. Amercans - especially in the suburbs, suffer from a sort of autism - they refuse to try anything new.
I want big government to get out of the way and give people like me the opportunity to be small business entrepreneurs. Government regulations are fine but why should they be doing climate control when they're allowing the big polluters to throw our jobs to foreign labor?
It's time to nationalize the gigantic and greedy banks, the job-stealing retail chains, the polluting energy companies, the cruel military industrial complex, the nickel-and-dime-you-to-death airlines, the warrantless-wiretapping cell phone companies and any other out-of-control industry that fails to put people above the all mighty dollar.
That might help small businesses compete against the oligopoly economics of Goldman-Sachs, Walmart, British Petroleum, Halliburton, United Airlines, Verizon, et al.
I try to limit myself to what I need, while allowing some comforts, my 3ton A/C my 6ft bathtub.
For commuting I use either my 1st gen Prius, because I like it! or my Motorcycle. I'd happily use public transit but it shuts down at 10pm and I work till midnight!
I use about 80 watts total of light. And I do use water, otherwise they just ship it to So.Cal to water golf courses anyway.
I'm not out to consume the world,, that said I pay considerable for my electric now and I already pay over $3 for gas. and I KNOW all these things will go up if this Carbon, Tax is allowed. My wages never go up, so unless I start robbing banks things need to stay stable pricewise for awile.. We havent even seen to price-tag for ObamaCare, and I'm bloody well frightened of it!.
>^^<