Barbara Boxer And Colleagues Feel The Heat On Cap And Trade

blog.newsweek.com:

Later today, more than 320 environmental and energy groups plan to deliver a letter to Calif. Sen. Barbara Boxer and her colleagues on the Senate Environment Committee that she chairs, arguing that the climate bill that the House narrowly passed in June is too diluted to reasonably curb carbon emissions and spur growth in renewable energy.

Read the whole story: blog.newsweek.com

Comments

[MyNameIsJames]

12:58 PM on 09/23/2009

I support Cap and Trade. HOWEVER, based on the perfomance of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress - Cap and Trade is DOA!

In fact, I cannot imagine the President getting ANYTHING of substance through the US Senate at this time. The whole Obama agenda is in peril.

I believe its time to start channeling LBJ and FDR!

[RomeoMD25]

07:56 PM on 09/02/2009

The global warming scam passed by Congress. Goldman Sachs is in the middle of it, as usual a potential trillion dollar sure thing.

And Former Vice President Al Gore who will profit from the cap-and-trade plan through his company, Generation Investment Management,
Gore is joined by three former Goldman Sachs heads in their carbon offsets business.

[research]

08:39 PM on 09/02/2009

bs all gore money goes to charity. can you give it up yet???

[RomeoMD25]

03:06 PM on 09/10/2009

it appears your arguments mainly consist of "nuh-uh" and name calling and that tells me you are not a deep thinker and not really interested in the truth. your generation has been taught what to think and not how, you are the sad result of this new form of child abuse.

[RomeoMD25]

03:08 PM on 09/10/2009

i guess private plane and huge mansion
this days called charity

[research]

03:32 PM on 09/02/2009

ACES Cap and Trade is NOT A CLIMATE BILL.

It's the largest new derivatives market EVER Created!

This is a solution that relies on the Same Banskters who crashed our economy, and who extorted 24T$.

How insane is it to use the failed conservative ideas and criminals to solve our problems??????

1$ per Ton Carbon pollution tax.

Simple. Slightly increase the cost of piosoning the environment, thus giving the cleaner alternatives a boost in the market.

Further boost Rooftop Solar and WASTE BioChar with that tax.

[ezthere]

12:11 PM on 09/01/2009

is it a coincidence that they put it on the back burner the day Kerry came out with his sci fi opinion ?....and you wonder why Kerry lost to Bush in 2004

[RedStateCenterLeft]

09:45 AM on 09/01/2009

Reality check here: No one is willing to pay the higher taxes cap&trade will cause. Plain and simple.

The center of the nation, the breadbasket, uses lots of carbon to produce the food we eat and give to poor nations. The increased costs of fuel will make it impossible for only a few producers to raise the food we crave.

Alternatives: Go hungry or scrounge for food that only the folks who can afford Whole Paycheck will toss into dumpsters.

This isn't going to work without some serious help to farmers. Otherwise, watch your food bill rise by at least double.

In other words: The rich get richer. The poor get poorer.

[beyobi]

11:53 PM on 08/31/2009

Fighting for a window seat on a runaway train. Too many people. Too little planet. Homo Sapien will be the first species to become extinct as a result of the abstract concepts it holds which are in direct opposition to the natural order. The water is being held back by artificial means but the damn can only be built so high. Eventually all that kenetic energy will be released and the flood will cleanse the planet of this disease.

NOW,WHO WANTS ICE CREAM?!!

[pmagellan]

11:42 PM on 08/31/2009

Since we don't have the rectitude and intelligence to enact a clear and transparent tool such as a CARBON/POLLUTION TAX, and directly account for externalities without bureaucratic schemes always open to political meddling, there are a few more questions as to details of a cap-trade scheme--such as how many initial credits to be allotted, and allocated.

Or we could go further and ask:

Why do we sacrifice our ideals to manufactured instead of reality-based fears?

Why are we pursuing an economic model of development based on growth instead of sustainability and respect for our only home, Earth?

Why don't we shift the paradigm before it shifts us? It would be easier and less painful...

[WillWilson]

08:55 PM on 08/31/2009

Nobody "supports" global warming, it just is, like the Earth orbits the Sun. Recently, it's taken place because humans released millions of years worth of buried carbon into the atmosphere. (see my posts at sciencetime.org) The question is whether we should do anything about the long-term consequences. Some people say yes, some people say no. I think the current human population has an obligation to clean up its mess for the people who'll be living in the year 2100.

What cap-and-trade does is eliminate the subsidy on fossil fuels. Future costs -- economic problems due to climate change -- aren't borne by fossil fuel extractors, thus aren't folded into the costs consumers pay. Cap-and-trade creates a currency that will increase with time, as long as no more credits are allotted, as emission rights become a limiting resource (the cap). The whole point of the system is to fold future costs of burning fossil fuels into present costs, get our carbon emissions under control, and hopefully mitigate the economic costs of climate change.

For those seeking an understanding, I refer you to our energy use over the last two centuries:
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=116
the reality of global warming,
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=95
increasing sea levels,
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=125
Respectfully,
Will Wilson

[beyobi]

12:18 AM on 09/01/2009

The people living in the year 2100 will number somewhere around 14 billion. Doesn't really matter if we cut emissions by 50% but increase our population by 100%. Here's the problem as I see it. The economic system we are trying to solve this climate crisis with has no reverse. It can only expand. If it contracts it collapses and all bets are off.

"That's some catch that catch 22."

[Patriot86]

01:08 AM on 09/01/2009

I have to ask, how much money in grants do you take to support cap and trade legislation?

[WillWilson]

07:55 AM on 09/01/2009

$0

The Bush years were very hard on funding for Ecology and Evolution, my former research area. Funding levels dropped from around 35% of all proposals to about 6%. The Bush years starved U.S. science in unbelievable ways, and it's not clear that we will recover. Now my goal is to apply knowledge in the service of society, and help guide policy in sensible directions.

Thank you for asking. Read more at sciencetime.org

Will Wilson

[independantmav]

08:11 PM on 08/31/2009

I wonder if they were dressed in Brooks Brothers suits?

[mikefina]

08:08 PM on 08/31/2009

It's like that show on Animal Planet--the one where the parents eat their young. Only funny.

[ezthere]

05:52 PM on 08/31/2009

any who are out to beat up on Boxer or Feinstein are supported by me

[Glint Hammer]

05:43 PM on 08/31/2009

H.R. 2454 is an economic disaster in the making. Any one who thinks that our country or any industrialized country can reduce their Co emissions to 6 billion tons is a lunatic. The technology and infrastructure simply don't exist. As a matter of fact the tech. and infra. required, haven't even been invented. Enough is enough!

This whole bill was nothing but a distraction for another agenda that is more directly and immediately dangerous to our economy. The health care reform bill is aimed at helping 17% of the population but would demand more money than the rest of the 82% contribute in taxes combined!

I'll say it again ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!

[Javani]

10:21 PM on 08/31/2009

"Any one who thinks that our country or any industrialized country can reduce their Co emissions to 6 billion tons is a lunatic."

That is by design. If targets were meetable no one be incentivised to purchase carbon offsets. The cap and trade markets would be idle. No money for Goldman Sachs.

[Chicagofan1]

05:24 PM on 08/31/2009

This woman needs to retire. She is all about "being called senator" and nothing else.
CA deserves better then that.

[GreekOracle]

05:00 PM on 08/31/2009

Yes, SENATOR!!!! Bla, Bla, Bla.your time is about up as a looser senator.

[tompoe]

04:40 PM on 08/31/2009

That sounds good enough for me to hope Boxer gets run out of office, and out of town. It's just not enough to pin a label of Democrat on her lapel, and think she's home free on accountability to the voters.