Republicans Block Senate Global Warming Bill

RSS stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

H. JOSEF HEBERT | June 6, 2008 02:40 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
In this May 21, 2008 file photo, customers re-fuel their vehicles at a Beverly Hills, Calif. gas station, The economic cost of confronting global warming - from higher electricity bills to more expensive gasoline - is driving the debate as climate change takes center stage in Congress. (AP Photo/Ric Francis, File)

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, pushing debate over the world's biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president.

Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote, prompting Majority Leader Harry Reid to pull the legislation from consideration.

The Senate debate focused on bitter disagreement over the expected economic costs of putting a price on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas that comes from burning fossil fuels. Opponents said it would lead to higher energy costs.

The 48-36 vote fell short of a majority, but Democrats produced letters from six senators _ including both presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain _ saying they would have voted for the measure had they been there.

"It's just the beginning for us," proclaimed Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a chief sponsor of the bill, noting that 54 senators had expressed support of the legislation, although that's still short of what would be needed to overcome concerted GOP opposition.

"It's clear a majority of Congress wants to act," Boxer said at a news conference.

She and other Democrats said this now lays the groundwork for action on climate change next year with a new Congress and a new president that will be more hospitable to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions.

Both Obama and McCain have called for capping carbon dioxide and other emissions linked to climate change. President Bush has opposed such measures and said he would have vetoed the Senate bill if he had received it.

The bill would have capped carbon dioxide coming from power plants, refineries and factories, with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century.

"It's a huge tax increase," argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal."

Supporters of the bill accused Republicans of muddying the water with misinformation.

"There is no tax increase," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., one of the bill's chief sponsors said. She said the emissions trading system would provide tax relief to help people pay energy prices. And supporters disputed that it would substantially increase gasoline prices.

Four Democrats joined most Republicans in essentially killing the bill.

Obama and McCain, as well as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is recovering from cancer surgery, were absent, although they each sent a letter supporting the bill.

 
 

Comments
180
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
- CEDobson See Profile I'm a Fan of CEDobson permalink

Leave it to most republicans to be so self-centered and ignoring of future generations.

Global warming is upsetting the delicate balance of our environment. Glacial erosion, animal extinction and the tipping of our ecologic scales are all just symptoms of the final outcome - the end of mankind. Because it is not immediate/epidemic, this will be ignored - as usual. Typical.

Most of our elected officials live luxurious lifestyles using a lot of our tax dollars, i.e., the fleecing of America. I work hard for my money, don't greedily take it. I am more than willing to pay a few more extra tax dollars from my check to sustain the existence of my children, their children and their children's children. I would prefer this to government gluttony any day, and I am willing to bet most Americans of the non-republican persuasion would agree. As a matter of fact, stop taking "your" luxuries out of our checks and we probably won't notice the difference - maybe can even afford gas.

I'm really tired of hearing about how much democrats spend, when it is the democrats who give a damn about humanity. Republicans only give a damn about themselves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 AM on 06/09/2008
- dairyair See Profile I'm a Fan of dairyair permalink

Dems don't care about humanity, just controlling every aspect of everyone and everythings lives. What is Al Gore's carbon footprint. Big hippocrate.
I believe climate change has been going on before the ice age. Ice age came from somewhere and it went away. Explain that pls.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 PM on 06/09/2008
- TimmySlagle See Profile I'm a Fan of TimmySlagle permalink

I don't see the problem.

The founders designed our government so that it didn't work well. They knew how the egos of men worked, and pitted them against each, knowing that the struggle for power within the government would keep it stalled. What we now call "gridlock" was entirely intentional.

Kind of like building a car with wobbly wheels, so it would be impossible to drive more than five miles an hour. It was thankfully designed as a inefficient machine. Efficient Governments have not been a friend to humanity.

And since there is a very good chance, that any Global Warming Legislation will far outlive the scientific "consensus,' we should all be grateful to those wise men who sketched it out on parchment over 230 years ago.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 06/08/2008
- realpolitic See Profile I'm a Fan of realpolitic permalink

Slagle says he does not see a problem. I am not reassured. Bush does not see problems, either. He is an ideologue who wears blinders. If the Founders were here now they would be discussing creative ways to address the climate change problem. Their creative, Renaissance-type minds would find creative ways of looking at the problem and would certainly not decide to leave the problem to future generations. As a scientist, Ben Franklin would have wonderful ideas.

As far as the statement "any Global Warming Legislation will far outlive the scientific 'consensus,' " it is nonsense. Slagle is equating any legislation passed on global warming with the passing of a constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult. The passing of a bill into a law requires a simple majority. A change in the constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress. Thus, a law is much more flexible than a constitutional amendment and can be superceeded with other laws down the road. It is not made of stone.

I guess this reasoning is the modern conservative equivalent of burying one's head in the sand. This proclivity is a major reason why peple are turning away from conservative politics because they offer no solutions. Legislation can be passed that is flexible. Industry will not act unless is it has to. New legislation can superceed the old. Giving an erroneous excuse that legislation is set in stone is no excuse for not acting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 AM on 06/09/2008
- nirek See Profile I'm a Fan of nirek permalink

Lets take the money we save by ending the war and invest in renewable energy, our infrastructure, roads, bridges, heatlth care, education, and pay down our debt. This war is costing us too much. We should think about charging more for the food we send to the MId East at the same increase that oil is going up. Or they can eat oil.
Just some random thoughts from an old guy .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 AM on 06/08/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

I'm pretty sure we put enough money into education and what we have seen is putting money into education does little in reation to the progress of the students. There are some states that pay $21,000 per year per student . . . you would think they would have the best test scores and the smartest students right? Nope.

Pay down the debt yes, we are already investing in renewables but it would help if the government would allow us to build a nuclear plant or a hydro plant at some point in the next 20 years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 06/08/2008
- TimmySlagle See Profile I'm a Fan of TimmySlagle permalink

It's actually not possible to "pay down the debt.

Government debt is not like a Visa Card, where you can just make an extra payment or two one month.

Government debt is held in bonds with a fixed rate of return over a time period that people count on, often for retirement savings.

Yes, you can buy back bonds, but you have to offer a better rate of return than the interest. it makes more sense just to pay the bonds off on schedule, and refuse to write any more.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:15 PM on 06/08/2008
- avicenna See Profile I'm a Fan of avicenna permalink

Considering the fact that everything that comes out of the current Administration is full of hot air - this is hardly a surprising turn of events. If they simply took all the subsidies that American tax dollars go towards lining the pockets of the billionaire oil industries - who have enough money to use dollar bills as toilet paper - and invested in renewable energy production projects and manufacturing plants. This would be a winning situation for everyone except the fossil fuel industry (the current puppetteers controlling the senseless gov't) who should be as extinct as the organisms whose carbon they are exploiting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 PM on 06/07/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

Do you know who are the primary shareholders of these evil oil comapnies?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 AM on 06/08/2008
- realpolitic See Profile I'm a Fan of realpolitic permalink

Who? Dr. Evil himself and his henchmen No. Two.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 AM on 06/09/2008
- joebhed See Profile I'm a Fan of joebhed permalink

I think the question is do THEY know who they are.

Or, as with mortgage-backed securities, are the holders of these shares just part of a well-meaning group who use their association with some safe sounding investment fund to own shares of things that do pay a nice dividend?

Let me know if I need to elaborate on that.

Every type of investment fund out there has investments in shares of the oil companies.

There are a lot of non-informed American working people who have their 401K investments in these safe-sounding investment fund companies. They just do not realize that it is their 401K funds that are used to further drive up the price of oil. Or, another way to think of it would be to say that their 401K funds are being spent to keep the oil prices from coming down.

And I don't mind saying that I think a whole lot of those ordinary working Americans would rather not support the oil companies, if they had the choice.
But, that's just my opinion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 PM on 06/08/2008
- realpolitic See Profile I'm a Fan of realpolitic permalink

Republicans have become the party who block everything. They were said to be the party of ideas and now they are the party of where ideas go to die. They are defined by what they are against.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:04 PM on 06/07/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

Not all ideas are good ideas and the current way this bill stands . . . it's not a good idea.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 06/08/2008
- realpolitic See Profile I'm a Fan of realpolitic permalink

And do you base your statement on anything at all or just conclude it is not a good idea? The biggest contributor to high energy costs now is our war in Iraq. When we scale down and with less volatility in the region, oil prices will decline. Thus, we can cap greenhouse gases and speed the development of alternative energies with this legislation. A small, short term increase in enegy prices will be offset be a greater effort at peace in the Middle East and lower oil prices.

Without some acknowledgement of climate change, the costs we will be paying in the near future to save coastal cities and other expenditures will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 AM on 06/09/2008
- oncethere See Profile I'm a Fan of oncethere permalink

Republicans: They do not believe the scientific evidence is in yet that the planet is warming; they don't believe the scientific evidence is in yet on Evolution. But, they do have blind faith in God and in the anoymous forces of the free market.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 PM on 06/08/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

Open your eyes buddy, this bill had no shot from the beginning. Do you honestly think it is a smart idea to rush a bill that would be the biggest tax increase in the history of the USA through in 3 days?

If Democrats were serious about this bill they would never have done that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 AM on 06/08/2008
- realpolitic See Profile I'm a Fan of realpolitic permalink

Industrial polluters may be forced to buy and sell carbon credits and therefore offset their carbon footprints. I would think new technologies would arise that would reduce energy costs in the long run. Besides, unbiased, do you think in the long run you are saving money when we do nothing? You think as coastal cities, such as New Orleans, get inundated with water with storms increasing in intensity that there are no costs to be paid in the long and short term. The costs of doing nothing are much higher. Even Republicans can occasionally think in the long term and using real world examples.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 AM on 06/09/2008
- ofbbg See Profile I'm a Fan of ofbbg permalink

The NERVE of those Repubs !! Blocking a bill that would bankrupt the American economy while developing nations laugh at our idealistic stupidity and self-destructive political behavior - all in the name of the biggest HOAX in history!!
Unbelievable !!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 PM on 06/07/2008
- BlackbirdHighway See Profile I'm a Fan of BlackbirdHighway permalink

Yes, it's soooo much preferable that we bankrupt the American economy paying for the Iraq occupation!

The Iraq war recession is here already, and it's going to be very, very nasty. A lot of Americans are going to be hurting badly before things get better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 AM on 06/08/2008
- ofbbg See Profile I'm a Fan of ofbbg permalink

$170 billion for a war we're winning to try to bring a 9th century culture into the 21st century and some form of democratic stability into the most volatile and looney-tunes region of the world compared with $338 billion per year providing services to ILLEGAL aliens - I'd much rather fight Islamofascist lunatics in their back yard than in mine. And I'd just as soon cut the funding for illegals off completely and give it back to the American people!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:20 PM on 06/08/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

You do know this is the same congress that funds the war right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 AM on 06/08/2008
- JaniceD See Profile I'm a Fan of JaniceD permalink

Does anyone have a list or know the best place to get a list of the Senators who voted against this bill -- name D/R and state? I think it's kinda hard to get from the Senate.gov site.
(And does anyone know why it is that authors of articles about votes don't include a list?)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 06/07/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

They should have voted against it, it calls for reduced emissions with no solutions or ways to acheive that. There is no provision for allowing nuclear plants to be built, right now it takes around 10 years to get through all the government BS before we can build one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 AM on 06/08/2008
- LiberTLover See Profile I'm a Fan of LiberTLover permalink

Slogan to Republicans: "We will remember in November"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:40 PM on 06/07/2008
- wordvarc See Profile I'm a Fan of wordvarc permalink

.

Another brick sealing the rovian RNC/GOP legacy under w.

.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:54 PM on 06/07/2008
- incontempt See Profile I'm a Fan of incontempt permalink

And now the 527's nhave a simple subject to hang all the republicans with!! Hoorah

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:32 PM on 06/07/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

Do you think the American public will respond well to the Democrats trying to push the biggest tax increase ever in just 3 days?

People are smart enough to know that a tax increase never hurts business, it hurts the people that buy their products and a 80% increase in their energy bill might turn people off during a recession.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 AM on 06/08/2008
- coyote4 See Profile I'm a Fan of coyote4 permalink

THERE IS A LANDSLIDE COMING.
-Chinese demand for energy will remain high until games, building a sold foundation for the speculators to stand on.
-our economy is slowing, and inflation is increasing reacting to high energy costs = stagflation
-experts are abandoning arguments for an oil price cycle, instead speaking of a new paradigm of high oil costs. Absolutely no one is predicting oil to sink below $70, ever.
-stock markets are looking to crash, e.g: major corrections
-Republicans in Congress still acting like dinosaurs and blocking change and progress
-unprecedented voter turnout and interest in Democratic campaign

There is a landslide coming in November, and unless C heney's Sha dow Govern ment does something nasty, the Republicans are going to get an historical bea ting such that a new paradigm in government and politics will be created.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:35 PM on 06/07/2008
- gdaerin See Profile I'm a Fan of gdaerin permalink

that's very anti-American of them.

I guess we're only the "leader of the free world" when it involves killing people

but when it involves the survival of our species? Not so much

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 06/07/2008
- coyote4 See Profile I'm a Fan of coyote4 permalink

leader with the most nuclear weapons
leader with the most people in jails
leader in ki lling folks
leader in energy consumption
leader in consumption
leader in resisting change as necessary to solve planetary problems
leader in fat ug ly uber-rich folks greedily clutching ho gging des troying denying ma dness

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 06/07/2008
- ofbbg See Profile I'm a Fan of ofbbg permalink

leader in number of people trying to immigrate for the American Dream (I haven't heard of too many people trying to sneak across the border to Mexico).
leader in the destruction of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
leader of the forces protecting Europe since 1945.
leader of the forces protecting S. Korea since 1950.
leader in the destruction of the self-admitted "Evil empire", the USSR.
leader of the exposure of the hoax of global warming (coming soon).
leader of the longest period of European peace in its history.
Etc., etc.......

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:40 PM on 06/08/2008
- TheEmptinessOfTruthiness See Profile I'm a Fan of TheEmptinessOfTruthiness