Because it would be very Politically Embarrassing if the bill goes to the floor and John McCain has to vote no

I'd gladly support a bill that would insist both sides STFU about climate change for a single day. I'm sick of it.

As for the bill, it will come due sooner, rather than later, and Mother Nature has a mean collection agency.

submitter: Senator Warner's climate change bill may be headed to defeat, because, well, it's stupid

Actually, that isn't what the article appears to say.

The article implies it is because the Senate is stupid.

The best thing we can do is accpet the fact that we're gonna die & move on.

Senator Warner's climate change bill may be headed to defeat, because, well, it's stupid

Like that ever stopped Congress. The bill is stupid and its failure is entirely coincidental.

submitter: Senator Warner's climate change bill may be headed to defeat, because, well, it's stupid

Skleenar: The article implies it is because the Senate is stupid.

I say you're both right.

MasterThief: I say you're both right.

I don't know enough about this particular bill to say whether it is stupid or not, but you can rest assured that something pretty close to it will be the law of the land in the next few years.

Does the bill somehow force China and India into reducing emissions? If not, nothing we do will amount to shiat. Two emerging industrial polluting powers with a combined population 8 times that of ours will easily create emissions more than we can reduce.

"People are pissed off about $4 per gallon gas. What should we do?"

"How about creating a law that will add another 20 percent on top of that, along with a whole lot of other stupid things?"

"Brilliant!"

cirby: "People are pissed off about $4 per gallon gas. What should we do?"

"How about creating a law that will add another 20 percent on top of that, along with a whole lot of other stupid things?"

"Brilliant!"

You have a very small regard for the ingenuity of the American people.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Does the bill somehow force China and India into reducing emissions? If not, nothing we do will amount to shiat. Two emerging industrial polluting powers with a combined population 8 times that of ours will easily create emissions more than we can reduce.

Us doing something might give us more leverage to use if we later try to push them into doing something. They might just laugh at us, but at least they would be the ones taking the blame and not us. That might be important if we later start making trade deals, etc contingent on meeting environmental standards.

Republicans forced Democrats to have the 492-page bill read aloud on the floor

Maybe they just want to make sure the entire thing gets submitted, unlike the farm subsidy/pork trough clusterfark.

Funny, subby, I read the article as bill headed to defeat because the Republicans are a bunch of whiny nancy-boys that block legislation by being passive agressive.

People are already having enough of a hard time with gas prices. And some of you dumbfarks blame Bush for the whole thing. This is estimated to increase gas prices by $1.50 to $5 a gallon! What the hell is wrong with you people?

I'm seriously understanding why non-GWcultists believe it's all about destroying our economy. It seems obvious with some of the crap the enviro-nuts are pulling. Especially this bill!

The senate is the main stupid party in this. I cannot grasp why the dems only want a week worth of open debates on something as changing as this. The repubs are also stupid for pulling a full reading, even though I think that should be mandatory for all bills, it just sends the wrong signals. It actually looks like both sides want this bill to fail. The dems can use the "republican obstructionism" as a hammer and the repubs can go back to their constituents and say "See, we killed that, we dun good".

I am not much for the bill myself but the politics in this is farked.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Does the bill somehow force China and India into reducing emissions? If not, nothing we do will amount to shiat. Two emerging industrial polluting powers with a combined population 8 times that of ours will easily create emissions more than we can reduce.

Considering that even with their much larger population, China *just* this year passed the U.S. as the nation emitting the most carbon dioxide, I'd say that cutting our own emissions can still do a hell of a lot of good. Not to mention that the Chinese and Indians are highly unlikely to reduce their emissions unless we lead the way, since we've been at the top a lot longer than they have.

Can anybody explain to me why these bills are always 500 pages+? I believe this is why the senators never read bills half the time. Senators need to learn the word Brevity.

Skleenar: You have a very small regard for the ingenuity of the American people.

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself.

I don't know enough about this particular bill to say whether it is stupid or not, but you can rest assured that something pretty close to it will be the law of the land in the next few years.

I just hope they have the honesty to make it a straight-up carbon tax (cap-and-trade has about as much to do with the free market as money laundering does with finance), the political savvy to make it revenue-neutral and the common sense to expand domestic oil supplies. They probably won't.

/Malaise: The Next Generation

MyRandomName: Can anybody explain to me why these bills are always 500 pages+?

You gotta crowbar the loopholes for your campaign contributors in somewhere!

Looks like it's S.3036 again. It passed a cloture vote 74-14-12 on June 2nd, but... WTH is a 'Motion to Instruct Sgt-At-Arms' ? (Senate roll call vote 143, 27-28-45).

...ah, perhaps it's to request the attendance of absent Senators.

This is good. Not because the bill is 'stupid' but because it's a pork-laden abortion that would saddle the economy with huge costs, enormously benefit fat-cat contributors, and do little to stop climate change.

If we're going to have one of these, I'd at least like it to go along with Robert B. Reich's idea of selling ALL the credits (not just some, while giving away the rest for free) and distribute the revenue thus obtained equally to every citizen of the US.

glassa: People are already having enough of a hard time with gas prices. And some of you dumbfarks blame Bush for the whole thing. This is estimated to increase gas prices by $1.50 to $5 a gallon! What the hell is wrong with you people?

It's a good thing for the price of gas to increase dramatically. That would bring our level of taxation in line with European levels and create a serious incentive for us to restructure our society so that we don't all need cars all the time. It might actually get us off of oil imports, by curbing demand. But it would preferably need to be phased in slowly so that people and the economy can adapt.

cirby: "People are pissed off about $4 per gallon gas. What should we do?"

"How about creating a law that will add another 20 percent on top of that, along with a whole lot of other stupid things?"

"Brilliant!"

FTFA: The Bush administration's Energy Information Agency, for example, puts the additional monthly cost to consumers at only $2.50 a month by 2030 and $6 by 2050.

I'm sure you can find a way to offset that exorbitant cost.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Does the bill somehow force China and India into reducing emissions? If not, nothing we do will amount to shiat. Two emerging industrial polluting powers with a combined population 8 times that of ours will easily create emissions more than we can reduce.

Too bad India proposed a similar plan quite a while ago, and we outright rejected it.

glassa: People are already having enough of a hard time with gas prices. And some of you dumbfarks blame Bush for the whole thing. This is estimated to increase gas prices by $1.50 to $5 a gallon! What the hell is wrong with you people?

What's wrong with us people?

Could it be that we can't find anything that claims prices will rise like you are claiming? Please document this assertion that gas prices will increase by "$1.50 to $5 a gallon" and you might see a lot of people change their mind.

And yes, many of us believe that the preemptive bombing of an oil producing country created a situation where the cost of crude climbed. Considering that the price of gasoline has quadrupled and the demand for oil has not climbed at anywhere near that rate, one might believe the two events are interrelated. If you have any credible proof to the contrary, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

glassa: I'm seriously understanding why non-GWcultists believe it's all about destroying our economy. It seems obvious with some of the crap the enviro-nuts are pulling. Especially this bill!

Cut it out, you've always believed this crap and are simply looking for anything to rationalize it.
Now, do you have anything to back up your claim that gas prices will dramatically rise or not?


soy chai latte: FTFA: The Bush administration's Energy Information Agency, for example, puts the additional monthly cost to consumers at only $2.50 a month by 2030 and $6 by 2050.

I'm sure you can find a way to offset that exorbitant cost.

Wiat a minute! That's not what Glassa said!
What are you some kind of enviro-nut or something?
;-)

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Does the bill somehow force China and India into reducing emissions? If not, nothing we do will amount to shiat. Two emerging industrial polluting powers with a combined population 8 times that of ours will easily create emissions more than we can reduce.

Obviously the point you are trying to make is that we shouldn't bother to do anything.

After all, there would be no benefit to the United States directly, as in, reduction of air pollution which is now reaching horrendous levels in areas like Pittsburgh or many of our cities, again, after years of slow but noticeable reductions.

And the idea that this legislation might spur innovators to invent products that we could then sell worldwide possibly helping our economy and job situation could also offset this cost.

I thought this would be a conservative's dream come true.
Perhaps I need to find some Goldwater conservatives to ask.
Do you know where any of them are? All I see today is this new breed.
Hell, I can't even recognize how they got the conservative nomenclature.

So who ends up paying the commissions for the cap-and-trade traders.

karasoth: Because it would be very Politically Embarrassing if the bill goes to the floor and John McCain has to vote no

No, because it's just plain stupid. See for yourself...

MasterThief: I just hope they have the honesty to make it a straight-up carbon tax (cap-and-trade has about as much to do with the free market as money laundering does with finance),

It was my stealthly manipulation of sulphur dioxide credits that allowed me to retire a billionaire. And look how it accomplished nothing- acid rain is worse than ever!

the common sense to expand domestic oil supplies.

Why? It´s political posturing that is meaningless in the long term.

<b>Random Reality Check:</b> <i>glassa: People are already having enough of a hard time with gas prices. And some of you dumbfarks blame Bush for the whole thing. This is estimated to increase gas prices by $1.50 to $5 a gallon! What the hell is wrong with you people?

What's wrong with us people?

Could it be that we can't find anything that claims prices will rise like you are claiming? Please document this assertion that gas prices will increase by "$1.50 to $5 a gallon" and you might see a lot of people change their mind.

And yes, many of us believe that the preemptive bombing of an oil producing country created a situation where the cost of crude climbed. Considering that the price of gasoline has quadrupled and the demand for oil has not climbed at anywhere near that rate, one might believe the two events are interrelated. If you have any credible proof to the contrary, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

glassa: I'm seriously understanding why non-GWcultists believe it's all about destroying our economy. It seems obvious with some of the crap the enviro-nuts are pulling. Especially this bill!

Cut it out, you've always believed this crap and are simply looking for anything to rationalize it.
Now, do you have anything to back up your claim that gas prices will dramatically rise or not?


soy chai latte: FTFA: The Bush administration's Energy Information Agency, for example, puts the additional monthly cost to consumers at only $2.50 a month by 2030 and $6 by 2050.

I'm sure you can find a way to offset that exorbitant cost.

Wiat a minute! That's not what Glassa said!
What are you some kind of enviro-nut or something?
;-)</i>

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I dont believe that carbon caps will raise oil prices

/dumbf*ck

Random Reality Check: soy chai latte: FTFA: The Bush administration's Energy Information Agency, for example, puts the additional monthly cost to consumers at only $2.50 a month by 2030 and $6 by 2050.

I'm sure you can find a way to offset that exorbitant cost.

Wiat a minute! That's not what Glassa said!
What are you some kind of enviro-nut or something?
;-)

You're right, and I stand corrected. Must be the glare from my CFLs.

Random Reality Check:
And yes, many of us believe that the preemptive bombing of an oil producing country created a situation where the cost of crude climbed. Considering that the price of gasoline has quadrupled and the demand for oil has not climbed at anywhere near that rate, one might believe the two events are interrelated. If you have any credible proof to the contrary, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.


There is no simple answer to the spike in oil prices. A lot of finger pointing going on right now.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-06-03-oil-prices-speculat io n_N.htm?csp=34
Commodity fund investors help drive oil prices higher
By Adam Shell, USA TODAY
NEW YORK - The list of culprits to blame for $4 gas and $125 oil keeps getting longer.

Oil-thirsty China and India get most of the blame. The declining U.S. dollar, tight supplies, geopolitics and hurricanes also are on the villains list. Last week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) alleged that market "manipulators" may be partly responsible for the spike in crude oil and that an investigation is underway. The latest scapegoat: institutional investors that are pouring billions into index funds pegged to a broad basket of commodities, including crude oil, exacerbating the price gains.

Tuesday, financier George Soros told Congress that commodity index funds contributed to the oil "bubble" and caused "harmful economic consequences." His remarks echoed those of Michael Masters, a hedge fund manager, who testified on May 20 before a Senate panel. Masters said oil's rise directly correlates to the cash that pension funds and endowments are pouring into commodities futures markets. Assets allocated to all commodity index trading strategies by "index speculators," he said, have risen from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion through March.

"These trading strategies amount to 'virtual hoarding' via the commodities futures markets," Masters testified. Soros urged regulators to improve market oversight and place limits on the size of commodity-specific positions. The CFTC last Thursday said it will require monthly reports from traders on their index trading to better "identify the impact of this type of trading."

Blaming the indexers for the rise in oil or branding them as speculators is unfair, says Michael McGlone, director of commodity indexing at Standard & Poor's. S&P GSCI is a popular commodity index. Investing in an index fund that provides broad exposure to commodities is no different than an investor buying an S&P 500-stock index fund to diversify a stock portfolio, he says. Don Luskin, chief investment officer at Trend Macro, says index investors are just easy scapegoats. "The evidence against commodity index funds is circumstantial at best," he says. After falling $3.45 to $124.31 a barrel on Tuesday, oil is still up 30% for 2008. The drop came after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said more interest rate cuts are unlikely. That helped boost the dollar, which depressed oil, because oil is denominated in dollars.

Five years ago, big investors were tiny players in commodities. But after the 2000 stock bust, they sought out the asset class to diversify. Greenwich Associates says that a third of investors in commodities have been active in these markets for less than three years.

Don't worry, it will be back next year when there's a president who supports it regardless of who wins the election.

/hold on to your wallet

Anybody have a theory on why the dems want to cut off debate after only a week?

Saiga410: Anybody have a theory on why the dems want to cut off debate after only a week?

Debate? What debate?



The GOP never intended to actually debate the merits of the bill. Hell, I have plenty of issues with the bill itself, but this is just more craven partisan ideologuing rather than representing the citizens of this country. farking pathetic and disgusting.

Elections are coming, and there will be consequences for this kind of shiat.

And based on bad science but why should we let that bother us?

No you are.

neocortex: Could it be that we can't find anything that claims prices will rise like you are claiming? Please document this assertion that gas prices will increase by "$1.50 to $5 a gallon" and you might see a lot of people change their mind.

i'm not sure where he/she is getting the $1.50 to $5 figures, but this study (pops) says it will raise prices of coal, oil, and natural gas. (i have no idea about the bias, or lack thereof, of this study)

From http://www.accf.org/pdf/NAM/ACCF-NAM-US.pdf (linked from the page referenced above)

L/W's Impact on Energy Prices
Most energy prices would rise under L/W, particularly,
coal, oil, and natural gas. The price of gasoline would
increase between 60% and 144% by 2030, while
electricity prices would increase by 77% to 129%. Table
1 shows the increase in gasoline and electricity prices
faced by US households. US consumers would pay
between 84% and 146% more for their natural gas by
2030.

MyRandomName: Can anybody explain to me why these bills are always 500 pages+? I believe this is why the senators never read bills half the time. Senators need to learn the word Brevity.

pork

soy chai latte:
FTFA: The Bush administration's Energy Information Agency, for example, puts the additional monthly cost to consumers at only $2.50 a month by 2030 and $6 by 2050.

...except that, if you read the report, it's pretty obvious that the reporter either didn't read it, or lied outrageously. The only way you can get the lowball figure you cite is by taking the best case, leaving out some other figures or glossing over them, and then completely ignoring the transportation segment.

From the actual report: "For example, motor gasoline prices
in the cases are 22 to 49 cents per gallon (9 to 21 percent) higher than in the Reference Case in 2020 and 41 to 101 cents per gallon (17 to 41 percent) higher than in the Reference Case in 2030."

By "Reference Case," they mean "if this bill doesn't pass." That means that the price increases above would come on top of whatever gas price increases we'd see anyway.

And this is on TOP of a real reduction in Gross Domestic Product, which they assume to be sort of small, but after the ranting and raving about the imaginary recession we didn't actually have, they're talking about causing a real, predicted, DECADES-LONG one (also in the report, although they don't call it that - they just casually refer to a small reduction in GDP).

...and this is if everything goes to plan. When was the last time a government program of this scope went to plan, or stayed on schedule? Or worked at all?

Shvetz: Snowflake Tubbybottom: Does the bill somehow force China and India into reducing emissions? If not, nothing we do will amount to shiat. Two emerging industrial polluting powers with a combined population 8 times that of ours will easily create emissions more than we can reduce.

Too bad India proposed a similar plan quite a while ago, and we outright rejected it.

Of course there was that one treaty that Bush signed not too many years ago that got most of the Pacific Rim countries to agree to work together for environmental preservation. The fact that it ment we would export with drastically reduced tariffs scrubbers and other environmental technology so that China would have an economical way to meet their growth needs and slow the growth of pollution is only a give away to big Oil, so don't worry about it.

MasterThief: Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself.

You don't know what I do for a living.

It, in fact, does have a lot to do with working through one aspect of the energy crunch.

So, kindly STFU.

Skleenar: You don't know what I do for a living.

It, in fact, does have a lot to do with working through one aspect of the energy crunch.

Ed Begley Jr., is that you?