Comments on: Americans are ready for a climate bill Global environmental challenges Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:14:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: coyotle Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:54:18 +0000 Scott, clearly common sense is not all that common.

By: Sc0tt Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:29:14 +0000 Isn’t it just common sense that taking millions of years of sequestered carbon and putting it all into the atmosphere in a scant couple of hundred years is going to have consequences?

By: ooddballz Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:08:42 +0000 The only climate we need changed is the one in D.C.

Global warming is a fraud, and the fraudsters are now looking to cash in on it. Weak minded people are still buying into it despite all the info showing how it has been politically motivated instead of scientifically proven.

By: The0Larch Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:23:31 +0000 Ultimately reducing our consumption and dependance on oil reduces the price of oil; making it the most attractive fuel for developing nations, where sustainability is a luxury. We acheive a class stagnating tax structure here while providng a cheap fuel for the rest of the world. Leadership does not mean being the first to enact another set of punitve and reactionary rules that translate behavior into dollars; its a tiresome solution and comepletly ineffective without global participation. There is tremendous opportunity for carrot here ie. reduction in carbon output tied to a reduction in the corporate tax rate etc. We are saturated with ineffectual regulations and beaten with dire preditions, make the process positive. Incentives will achieve what criminalizing (taxing/shaming) humans for there carbon output won’t.

By: doctorjay317 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:45:21 +0000 “Those 60 votes are nowhere to be found because conservative Democrats and all Republicans are against the bill. How can that be if the majority of Americans are in favor of it?”

Are you really that naive?

Big business bribes the politicians, not the majority of Americans.

By: HowleyGreen Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:26:41 +0000 A couple of political and economic clarifications.

1. The “first call” to wean ourselves from oil was not made by President Carter, but by President Nixon, a Republican. Then repeated by President Ford, another Republican, making President Carter the “third call” but the first Democrat.

2. The idea of putting a carbon or pollution tax on oil originated with conservative and libertarian economists such as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. They recognized that the price of oil is deceptively low due to huge government subsidies and the failure to account for externalities such as the pollution (not just carbon, but also particulates, highly toxic benzene, etc.) that oil imposes on all of us. A true conservative and capitalist would insist that oil receive zero government subsidies and that its price account for the full cost of pollution. If we did that, then solar, wind, geothermal and other renewables would attract more investment dollars and be price competitive. And if we added into the price of oil the cost of our military securing oil fields in places like Kuwait and Iraq, then alternatives would be downright cheap in comparison.

3. Unfortunately, history suggests that we will kill ourselves or come close to killing ourselves before we actually do anything to reduce out dependence on oil. Just look at the Dust Bowl that destroyed countless lives and nearly destroyed this country. Congress took no action until a dust storm reached Washington, D.C. Even then, they were reluctant to put in place the regulations on land use that were necessary to build sustainable agriculture. Those opposed to regulation called themselves capitalists and defenders of the free market; they called those who urged sustainable agriculture commies and worse. Just like today with oil. Of course, if we have stayed the course and listened to them back then, we would have starved to death by now. Instead, we built the most powerful agricultural industry in the world. We can do the same thing with renewable energy if we are willing to pay the price now. Or we can continue to hide the costs, not pay the price, and remain dependent on despotic regimes and rapacious multinational oil companies.

John Howley

By: thinkink Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:04:11 +0000 You contradict yourself – First you claim:
“But like every single bill since Obama has entered office, Republicans have filibustered it, forcing 60 votes for passage instead of a simple majority.

Then you claim:
“Those 60 votes are nowhere to be found because conservative Democrats and all Republicans are against the bill. How can that be if the majority of Americans are in favor of it?”

Seriously – are you so DAFT that you can’t understand?
YES – Americans want independence from foreign oil!!

IF you want more ridiculous “Monopoly game” style taxes – based on manufactured schemes in order to tax individuals through hidden agenda’s then you are in a clear minority!!

Your savior, Obama, is has demonstrated a complete disrespect, and disregard for what “the people” actually want!!

Burying garbage like CAP and TRADE measures in every possible, unrelated bill is why the bills don’t pass!!
By the way – for the record, I am neither Dem or Rep – so clear your head of any politically motivated bent here!!

By: jfarahcamp Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:49:40 +0000 Many believe Obama lets this spill go on for Political reasons. The Gulf States are Red States. ” Ruin their economy and they will be forced to turn to Government”.

If so he is underestimating the gulf states. I know the people of Louisiana love and have deep Loyalty to their state. They will never forgive him for this.

Obama Refused Dutch Oil Cleanup Help?
Houston Chronicle business columnist Loren Steffy Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help. It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands. The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

**Now, almost seven weeks later, as the oil spewing from the battered well spreads across the Gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our government have reconsidered. U.S. ships are being outfitted this week with four pairs of the skimming booms airlifted from the Netherlands and should be deployed within days. Each pair can process 5 million gallons of water a day, removing 20,000 tons of oil and sludge.
At that rate, how much more oil could have been removed from the Gulf during the past month?
, the plan for building sand barriers remains more uncertain. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal supports the idea, and the Coast Guard has tentatively approved the pro-ject. One of the proposals being considered was developed by the Dutch marine contractor Van Oord and Deltares, a Dutch research institute that specializes in environmental issues in deltas, coastal areas and rivers. They have a strategy to begin building 60-mile-long sand dikes within three weeks.
That proposal, like the offer for skimmers, was rebuffed but later accepted by the government. BP has begun paying about $360 million to cover the costs

By: 123GoSolar Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:00:21 +0000 I believe that Dr. Fried is correct that little America is more than ready to embrace a clean energy future and more than a little unhappy funding both sides of the war on terror. Yet Congress has long since stopped caring what “We The People” want, and as the health care debate showed, the only thing Congress loves more than reelection, is political donations they derive from the endless quagmire of maintaining the status quo!

As someone who lives in New Orleans, one would think a +100 million gallon oil spill, wrecking the environment and the economy would change the dialog, yet both of our Senators (D-Landrieu & R-Vitter), are calling for an end to the moratorium on offshore drilling, and would never even consider anything that might challenge the millions they receive from the big oil & power industries. …regardless of what America wants or might be good for her in the long run.

As Bill Gates says, the only thing that will change the energy status quo, is for someone to invent a cheaper alternative that can overcome the subsidized energy markets we have today. I know cap and trade is a marketplace mechanism that could help the process along, but so was the single-payer public-option, which never was really considered by the Senate as an option because big medical, big insurance and big drugs has no interest in a healthy America. Just as big oil and big power has no interest in Sustainable USA.

Until the press (aka Big Media) is willing to support little-America over Big-America in an intellectual honest marketplace of ideas, don’t expect Congress to lead us anywhere.

There is reason for hope, as the internet/blogosphere has removed the NEED for big media, its power and influence has waned, and once they realize they are in the same boat as little-America and the Supreme Court isn’t going to allow Congress to bail them out, then they may finally start holding sold-out politicians feet to the fire and change could happen.

But if you think David Vitter and Mary Landrieu are going to lead the charge against big oil and big power because little-America is ready, it might be good for the environment or America’s future; under the watchful guise of the Times Picayune? …well that is just silly!

By: kevinfromduluth Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:05:47 +0000 People like you are socialist communists who are using and accident to try to seize control of even more of the United States Economy….May I suggest moving to Cuba, oh, but wait, they jail journalists there, don’t they…….