If you cannot agree on something, go forward with it anyway. Is that how our founding fathers intended the political process to work? From Politico:
“Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman plans to fast-track his controversial climate change bill, bypassing the political hurdles of the subcommittee.
‘I’m still holding firm on my deadline to get a bill out of committee by the end of May and I believe that will probably require us to go right to the full committee and bypass the subcommittee,’ Waxman told reporters.
Democrats on the committee said the expedited timeline was necessary to pass a bill out of committee by the Memorial Day recess – a deadline set by Waxman and encouraged by the administration, which wants the committee to be ready to move on to health care reform this summer.
Fast tracking this bill also has some political advantages. The subcommittee is a tougher battleground than the full committee, largely due to its geographically diverse makeup and tighter margin.”
The mark up of the bill is now scheduled for next week. Passed legislation should not be set by an artificial deadline. We elect Members of Congress for a reason: to debate and carefully analyze legislation to fully understand the consequences. If this bill were so cut and dry, it would be an easy decision but the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have serious reservations should tell us something.
Put simply, there’s a lot wrong with it and that’s most evidenced by its high economic costs. Recent Congressional Budget Office testimony that a 15 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, a target that the Waxman-Markey proposal would reach within a decade, was estimated to cost the average household $1,600 per year.
Although President Obama initially pushed for a 100 percent auction with the proceeds to be given back to the people in the form of a tax cut, House Democrat Gene Green responded:
“I have five refineries in my district and a lot of chemical plants. And even a middle-class tax cut to someone who doesn’t have a job doesn’t help.”
Others want a certain portion of the emission allowances to be free while gradually phasing in an auction system, but this has its problems, too, as noted by Natural Resources Defense Council’s David Doniger:
“You just can’t give power generators a lot of free allowances, no strings attached. They just end up with huge windfalls.”
Marketplace’s Sarah Gardner goes on to say, “Doniger points to Europe as an example. It gave away lots of free carbon allowances. Utilities there pocketed billions by raising electricity rates anyway and selling off excess permits.”
So, in a race to “save the planet”, Chairman Waxman thinks circumventing the system is the fastest way to get there. One thing’s for sure: The loser of this race will be the American consumer. The only thing the Waxman-Markey bill will do is make sure we get there faster.
Henry Waxman is a product of his electorate. The rest of us need to stop him. He is probably one of those legislators who are heavily invested in alternative energy and would financially be hurt if he can not get these CO2 restrictions passed. If you follow his lead you will end up like Europe and we do not want to implement European style environmental restrictions or we will follow the decline of Europe. Global warming does not exist from man and is strictly a financial ruse of the environmental groups and congress that are heavily invested.
Also, Waxman through his power craze will lose in the end. So will the people he represents. California is already having problems, because they won't drill. If they start drilling oil their problems will be over.
For an administration that allegedly cares so much for the poor – increasing their utilities by 20% and the gasoline bills certainly doesn't illustrate it. We currently have many individuals requesting assistance in the winter to help pay their utility bills this will have a tenfold increase. Having heat is a matter of life and death – having air conditioning may someday be a thing of the past for the poor in the United States. Is this progress?
The term Global Warming has been changed to mean a methodology by which Americans will be compelled to freeze in their homes next winter. Now Waxman wants to fast-track legislation that will enable a rapid increase in energy costs – supposedly to reduce energy consumption.
Climate Change has been hyped without firm evidence. The purpose for the hype is to extend Democrat's tenure in office, as they have effectively positioned themselves as the 'environmental' party.
Waxman's move is just an other end-run around the legislative process.
Climate Change and Global Warming are overused phrases to describe a set of concepts, not necessarily facts.
Obama has changed the meaning of several once-common English language words. For more on overused or redefined Obama words, you can hit:
http://firstconservative.com/blog/top-ten/obamas-…
KAABOOOOM,,,,,,,,,,, Republicans today opened their own summit on issues aimed at portraying the Democratic climate plan as a new energy tax.
NOW,,,,,, is the time to begin the debate about man made global warming,,, consider this,,, with the population increase in the billions and with all the farm land put into service to feed these billions of people being irrigated [ watered ] , and hundreds of billions of gallons of water evaporating that would not be evaporating if we were not growing the food for these people,
NOBODY,,, is going to tell me [ climate experts ] , that they can predict what would have happened had these people never been born,,, and since there has been no debate concerning what other possible influence's man has contributed to climate change including evaporation for indeed it does change,,,
I have heard nothing about the affects of all this added water to the atmosphere that is occurring becouse of the population increase of the recent one hundred years or so and
the teaching that man can alter the weather is not proven and I have never heard of it being done except by god as it's written in the authorized version of the king James, holy, bible.
Sounds a little like Waxman is "under pressure"….but the agenda is?….certainly not for the good of the American people who foot the "bill"…..
Cap and Trade, based on the global warming hoax, would cost us much, much more. It would destroy our economy. Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.
We pray that honest officials — Democrats and Republicans — are able to save us from Obama's destructive schemes, such as cap and trade. Cap and trade would further enrich Obama’s friends while helping him achieve his goal of transforming the U.S. into another socialist/communist GULAG like Cuba.
Pingback: PA Pundits - International
Sure lets go ahead with trillions more dollars for something that may or may not exist (sarcasm). Didn't that happen in 99' with Y2K (billions perhaps, but not trillions, I know)?
Don't these people (Politicians, of course) realize that wind and solar energy have been around for hundreds of years but were phased out, for one greatly important reason,….wait for it….THEY WEREN'T ECONOMICAL.
Drill here, drill now, build nuclear power plants (ask the French, they seem good at it…I can't believe I just said that), LNG, Geothermal, Coal…I can do this all day.
Politicians have forked tongues. Whatever happened to Statesmen?
For the past 20 years I believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now, after many months of research, I'm not so sure. It's looking more and more to be a natural phenomenon to me. My interest in energy policy is so great I launched http://www.energyplanusa.com where I take a common sense look at global warming and energy policy. I've waded through the wellspring of global warming theory, the United Nation's IPCC reports, and conclude they lack the 'smoking gun' that proves global warming is man-made. Moreover, I've come to realize that man-made global warming theory cherry picks facts and ignores contradictory evidence from reliable studies.
I'm dismayed that my own party, the Democrats, the thinkers, have turned a scientific issue into religious zealotry where faith trumps facts. I'm also dismayed that the American press seems content with publishing hearsay, without backing up conclusions and presumptions with facts and evidence.
Before we effectively add more taxes to energy, I believe it's imperative that the United States establishes a non-political, scientific commission and reviews all facts and evidence surrounding global warming. The stakes are huge. If we respond to global warming incorrectly, our children and grandchildren will likely lead lives of increasing hardship and desperation.
Mas 1916 you need to get some firm scientific knowledge. Quit quoting the bible. I am a Christian and it is an insult. I am not a republican and I don't believe in the Gore hype.
Go learn earth sciences, weather sciences and chemistry (all three types).
Those of us who do understand chemistry (God given knowledge), weather and the earth sciences can tell you exactly how much man pollutes and how much a volcano pollutes through actual and empirical models. How much CO2 trees produce and how much oxygen they produce. Where does the majority of Oxygen come from? How is recycled? I know and I will leave that for you to find out. As for empirical future models; I agree, all you would have to do is look at what is actually going on and not use empirical models (history is a good measure of the future). CO2 does not cause Global warming; I am sorry to say, as has been presented by the Global warming kooks. I don’t call exhalation a pollution problem.
Trees do pollute and pollute under the green idea.
Learn how many carbon atoms verses oxygen atoms there are on earth and how much nitrogen man needs to live and the cycling of the all minerals and molecular structures, maybe you'll learn something. I don't have time to teach earth sciences in this short communication.
One volcano eruption produces 800 years of so called green house gases in relation to what man produces. Are you saying exhalation and methane produced by man will destroy the earth? I guess the Dinosaurs methaned themselves out of existence as a green person might try and say.
Learn how many volcanoes erupt each year how much green house gas goes into the atmosphere and then learn how many green house gases are released from the magma through cracks and fissures each year. Figure out how to stop Volcanoes, cracks and fissures from releasing all that gas the life blood of the earth and the start of life on earth. When you figure out how to stop; then stop it and then we will be dead. The greenies will have won. No life on earth.
Go to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean at the Galapagos Rift and watch the animals living in the hydrothermal vent area and surviving off that toxic environment at 380 degrees centigrade. They survive very well in the toxic waste (volcanic gases oops green house gases) produced by the magma. I challenge you to try and breathe Sulfates one time and see how long a person lasts. Are you in the mind of the British MP who says we need to get rid of a few people to reduce green house gases on earth? How sick if so.
I prefer to think about the mercury light bulbs which will be a problem in 5 to 10 years. The green outcry over iridescent light bulbs and use of CO2 was another ruse. I wonder if Representative Waxman and/or Representative Pelosi is profiting from the florescent light bulb craze. What disaster are they leading us into in the next 10 years with the bulb regulation?
As for evaporation go back to your high school earth sciences book concerning the weather cycle and what water does when it is evaporated. We do need rain you know and fresh water or we would be stuck with a lot of salt water. When water evaporates it creates clouds then what happens? By the way humans make water in the process of digestion and breathing an aside.
Then you might want to study the cycle of the sahara desert in North Africa and it's cycle. It does change it's face every five thousand years. Like I said we could go on and on.
I am sorry Mas 1916 I was addressing Thomas Gray not you with my concern about him thinking it is a Republican and my long answer. I agree with you.
I will be running against Henry Waxman in 2010. If any of you want to help my campaign please email me at ari@aridavidforcongress.com or send campaign contributions to Committee to elect Ari David P O box 163 Malibu, Ca., 90265
please include name:
Address:
Phone #:
Occupation:
Please send any amount up to the maximum $2400.00
I am trying to get one million $10 donations from people across the country from area that are going to be hurt by Henry Waxman. Join me and we can stop him
Thank you
Ari David
If global warming can be controlled by man, why isn't there an honest debate? IN PUBLIC! This is an unnecessary drastic measure. Put the government, Waxman on the spot to debate face to face w/someone who knows the truth, history and logic. An honest PUBLIC DEBATE. The priority of government stands to be something that doesn't exist…except government thievery from the people they serve.