Senate panel approves Democratic climate bill

[American]

Link

Thu Nov 5, 2009 10:32am EST
By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A key U.S. Senate environment committee approved a Democratic climate change bill on Thursday that would require industry to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 20 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.
The bill approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee will now become one of several initiatives in the Senate aimed at attacking global warming. But they are unlikely to produce legislation that would be voted on by the full Senate until next year at the earliest.
With Republicans boycotting the environment panel's measure, saying more analysis of the legislation was needed, 10 Democrats approved the bill and one Democrat, Senator Max Baucus, voted against it.
Senator John Kerry, who co-authored the bill with fellow Democrat Barbara Boxer, is leading an effort with some Republicans and the White House to draft a compromise.

It'll be interesting to see how the people respond to this.

 

[Cold Highway]

Climate bill? Bah! Energy costs skyrocketing is more like it.

 

[lizzie]

I don't know how the people will respond either, but this singular person will oppose it vehemently. It's nothing but a money grab proposed on the basis of another belief system.

 

[RightinNYC]

I think it's going to be important for those opposing the bill to be very clear about why they're doing so. If the Dems can lump all opposition together under the heading of "Global Warming Denier," it should be easy going for them. Those who oppose the bill for other reasons need to point out what those are.

It's possible to be 100% convinced that there is warming occurring, that humans are causing it, that this warming will be dangerous in the long term, and still think that this bill is absolutely atrocious.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can't get something for nothing. Cutting CO2 emissions means spending additional money. That cost is going to be passed on to consumers one way or another, whether by increased energy costs or increased taxes. Something that has been completely absent from the debate as of yet is the question of whether the eventual costs of continued CO2 production outweigh the costs of this (and similar) legislation.