Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill?

Question

open the link, then respond.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....

All to lower our CO2 emissions by 1.4% by 2050? Because of a hypothesis that human interference is the largest contributer to temperature change. More than the sun, volcanoes, under water volcanoes. And majority of all the methane into the atmosphere is wet lands and swamps, methane is a gas more hazardus than CO2 in terms of the green house effect.

Answer 1

Your link doesn't work, but I assume it's to some PR put out by Sen. Inhofe.  Sen. Inhofe (Oklahoma) is well funded by the oil and gas industry and he's known as the most scientifically illiterate person in the Senate.  So I wouldn't consider his PR a reputable source of science or economic issues related to global warming.

Answer 2

That's an interesting article:

Boxer Claims Recession is Best Time to Raise Energy Costs  

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, declared in her opening floor speech today that a “recession is the precise time to" enact the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill because it “brings us hope.”

Slamming our jobs, personal finances and damaging the country's economic procpects will give us hope?

As someone who has gotten filthy rich off of "campaign contributions" from special interests, Barbara Boxer is completely out of touch with the realties that us "little people" face as gas, food, and all other living costs skyrocket.

---

With the Lieberman Warner bill, the U.S. hopes to reduce emissions by 66% by 2050... over a span of 42 years.

China and U.S. emissions are nearly the same today.  China's growth in emissions ahs been 47% over the 14 year 1990 to 2--4 timeframe.  So in the 3X longer period of the next 42 years, China is on track to be emitting at a rate at least 150% higher (actually much with compound growth rate), or a total of 250% of today's emissions.

Meanwhile U.S. emisions would decline 66%, to 34% of current levels.  China will have emissions nearly 8X the emissions of the U.S., and it will have a per capita emision rate roughly 2X higher per person.  

And China still won't even discuss entering in a treaty to limit their CO2 emissions. With nearly a billion people, India has an even higher 14 year CO2 emission growth histroy of +55%.

So sure, we can all play a small role in slightly reducing global CO2 emissions, but clearly we can't compensate for the 80% of the population on this planet who have made no specific comittment to reduce emissions.  

In spite of all we know, China and India are building another 400+ coal-fired power plants.  Our conservation efforts and taxes can't adequately offset those impacts, so why kid ourselves about there being any serious effort or even proposal to reduce the continued rise in global CO2 emissions?

Most of all, don't talk about the contribution of black soot or the role of population growth.  Those might point to developing nations as having even more of a role, and we can't possibly ask them to act responsibly.  Even the richest of the rich in Hong Kong and Beijing... they get off scott free, so average people in the U.S. and Europe can pay a high cost for this strategy which is guaranteed to fail.

Even the most enthusiastic supporter of CO2 science has to recognize that the obvious failure of these taxes may only cause a serious backlash against future efforts that would involve a globally inclusive and much productive response.

Answer 3

This bill, which really does nothing for climate change regardless of your beliefs, is simply another way to use a "crisis" to implement another tax on the average American.  It is truely amazing how many people will support a bill based on it's presumed title without ever reading it's contents.

Fortunately it looks like that anyone that is up for re-election will vote against this bill as the polls show that Americans do not want it.

Answer 4

Support the biggest tax increase in US history.

Support the biggest increase in government since the new deal?

h**l no!

Answer 5

The Lieberman-Warner bill is going to lower our CO2 emissions 66% by 2050, not 1.4%.

CO2 (not the sun or volcanoes) is the cause of the current global warming (see link below).

Answer 6

This would be one of the worst bills we could pass. besides that Co2 actually follows warming. Dont believe it? Check out Gores movie lol