Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings


Senate action on climate bill seems doomed

WASHINGTON – The Associated Press says Senate Republicans appeared ready to turn back an ambitious plan to reduce the risks of global warming.

Supporters of a bill that would require greenhouse gases to be cut markedly and nudge the nation’s energy priorities away from fossil fuels acknowledged privately Thursday that they don’t have the votes to overcome strong opposition to the measure.

Even some Democrats shied away from supporting the legislation.

President Bush has said he viewed the bill as a tax on Americans and he would veto it should it ever reach his desk. But what about next year. If Democrats gain or hold power in Congress, it doesn’t matter who we elect as president. All Three candidates are for this bill including the liberal Republican John McCain.

In the cases of both Barak Obama and John McCain we must ask: What in the world was the public thinking when they chose these two men to be our president. At least with Bush, when the Democrats turned too far to the left he could veto their bills. Even if McCain is elected, Conservatives will have little to rejoice about. Come on, guys. In 2012 let’s get our game plan set and nominate a conservative. Even if McCain chooses a conservative for vice presidential running mate, it’s no time to get pyrexic about it. We all know that unless the president dies in office, the VP is largely powerless.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scheduled an early morning Friday vote to try to overcome a GOP filibuster. He would like nothing more than to drive a wedge between him and those conservative Utah Congressmen who support coal and shale extraction, both of which do disturb to some degree the environment. I say let the American people vote. Do we want cheaper gasoline or do we want Democrat Harry Reid, Republican John Warner, and Libertarian Joe Lieberman dictating higher prices for everything.

Leading sponsors of the bill already began looking toward next year with a new Congress and, more importantly, a new president, either Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, both of whom favor mandatory steps to counter climate change.

The following paragraph is typical garbage coming out of the wicked coalition mentioned above–but from the lips of a respected news gathering organization, the Associated Press. One would have thought they had better judgment than to word it this way. Here it is, then blog this site and tell us what you think:

“The 492-page bill marked the Senate’s first attempt to address global warming head on since widespread consensus (really?) has emerged in recent years among lawmakers — both Democratic and Republican — that man-made pollution is adversely changing the Earth’s climate and must be addressed.

When I graduated from journalism school the above sentence was labeled hearsay and not worthy to print. In those days journalists were just that, the reporters of truth and fact–not the makers of brash statements that can’t be substantiated. The Associated Press deserves some criticism over this.

They are right when they say: “But critics (most of us out here) of the bill said it threatened economic growth and would raise people’s energy bills.

Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky argued that the bill’s “cap and trade” approach to cutting carbon dioxide emissions would unleash “the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal.”

“It’s a huge tax increase,” he proclaimed even as the bill’s supporters argued it actually would provide tax breaks for people who faced higher energy costs, and financial assistance to carbon intensive industries through a pollution allowance trading system (No it wouldn’t).

One GOP senator after the other argued that people would be paying more for gasoline, words meant to hit home to motorists angry over having to pay $60 to $100 to fill their gas tanks. (And why shouldn’t we be angry?)

The measure would require power plants, refineries and factories to reduce their carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 19 percent by 2020 and by 71 percent by 2050. Along with capping emissions, it would allow companies to buy pollution allowances to meet the cap and ease the transition from fossil fuel. Watch out. It will come up again next year. By then, how much will we be paying for a gallon of gas?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: