Which US federal global warming bill do you support?

Question

On page 2 of this link there's a table comparing the various federal global warming bills in the US right now:

http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/factsheets/leg_07032601A.pdf

The Lieberman-Warner bill, which falls in the middle of the proposed bills, is set to be debated in congress in the next month or two.

What do you think of these bills? Please, only a civil discussion of what's contained within the bills. I don't need to hear a bunch of deniers saying all the bills are stupid because they think global warming is a conspiracy. That adds nothing to the discussion, and does not answer the question.

Answer 1

Jim Z - the term "deniers" (which I personally avoid, preferring "doubters") is no more offensive than the term "alarmists" which you so frequently use.

While I don't have a lot of confidence in federal programs, I think one is needed to nudge things in the right direction (i.e. toward a non-carbon based energy system).  Once a program is put in place (pretty much any of the ones listed) investments will move away from the ludicrous idea of using coal to fuel our cars toward actual renewable clean energy.  In 1 to 2 decades, entrepreneurial capitalism will kick into gear (something that should have started in the 70's) and be developing solutions that can beat the targets of any of these bills.

I'm optimistic because of the human potential for creative solutions.  The only thing that makes me pessimistic is the on-going obfuscation and heal-dragger's that seemed bent on stopping progress toward a better energy system and a cleaner environment.

Answer 2

let me first say Global warming took awhile to happen, and it will take a while to fix, which i personally believe were to late on that.  Secondly I don't believe the nation of the world will find an alternate source of energy in time to reverse the hands of time.  Although many innovative idea have come about with the advent of hybrids and ethanol >.> which i hear isn't that great because it still uses oil to produce the thing. I haven't heard a good plan yet these model that they present in the PDF is from 2012-2050 its 2008 how about they start now and not wait till 2012 to see the results. Wait its politics everything is slow >.> do you sense the sarcasm i hope you do, because im trying to get my point that its too late!!!!  I agree with my plan and that is get rid of the oil consumption now and maybe we might have a chance. To add further its the government the could easily mandate and subsidies all cars be turned into hybrids, lets start using our money in a productive way. beside I hear it doesn't cost that much. Is my car a hybrid no, but  at the same time i only use if for work, i live less than a block away from a commercial zone, i use reusable bags when i go shopping the whole deal i walk to my store ect. You want to see a difference start with yourself, and those around you that is my POV.

Answer 3

None.

Answer 4

On first glance, the most aggressive bill.  

On second thought, anything is better than nothing.  On third thought, if we can wait one more year the political environment in Washington is going to be much different, certainly no worse than it is now.  On fourth thought, if McCain gets in we're screwed.  No, wait, if McCain gets in it means people will have split their ticket and we will get a Democratic congress anyway.

I say wait and we will get the bill we want instead of having to compromise.

Pray for 60 democratic seats in the Senate.

I'm thinking somebody wants to get something through before the next congress, so they can lock in a mediocre bill.

Answer 5

Put em all into a modified Prius using ionic drive technology. Aim it at the sun, ensuring enough solar output for a few extra billon years.

Answer 6

I like the Sanders-Boxer bill because it covers 100% of emissions, but the Lieberman-Warner bill has garned more publicity and may have a better chance.

With this number of bills circulating, the chances of something relatively solid moving forward are pretty good.  There will be a lot of backroom discussions on this one, and voters/constituents need to make sure their representatives know that they are informed and watching the process, and that they support a well-reasoned approach to achieving viable reductions.

Answer 7

As I have stated in the past.  I hope YOUR children live long enough to live under the conditions that this kind of legislation will bring about.

I hope that you see gas go to 10, 15 or even 20 dollars a gallon, while at the same time electricity become something of the past.

When the food stops coming, the riots start occurring in YOUR neighborhood, and our way of life ends all together for  alarmist science,  I hope you and everyone who has brought it into being are the first to pay the price for it.

Answer 8

I do think that the global warming debate is unfortunate because we have more pressing issues than that. Our fresh water supply is very low, water pollution is an increasing problem, and air quality will be a problem long before CO in  atmosphere becomes a problem. Many animal species are near extinction, tree's which could counteract the CO issues are being cut down, if we saved more trees those CO issues would be less of a problem. Also, they all will be very hard on the economy, as most businesses will likely just leave the country and go to places withou caps.

Answer 9

I don't support any of the proposed plans, since they don't address the global warming influence that we know that we can quickly and effectively reduce: black soot.

Chasing CO2 emission reductions while developing countries are exempt and grow like weeds is a fool's errand, and an extremely expensive one at that.  

Case in point: China grows 8-10% a year, they'll outgrow U.S. CO2 reductions of 83% in 8-10 years, while we hope to gradually achieve similar reductions by 2050, over the course of 42 years.  Then consider India, Russia, etc. and we're still screwed on CO2.  When did flunking math become a prerequisite for becoming a politician?

The truth is, the politicians consult with experts who know all of this, the plans being proposed are for show only.  Politicians feel the need to "do something", but the sort of blatant dishonesty represented in these doomed-to-fail proposals is costing us dearly.

By all means study and plan for CO2 reductions, but as MIT has pointed out, the only successful strategy to address CO2 will be the one that brings all countries worldwide into the solution:

If a cooperative solution is at all possible, therefore, a major strategic consideration in setting U.S. policy targets should be their value in leading other major countries to take on similar efforts."

http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJ...

---

Reducing Black Carbon, or Soot, May Be Fastest Strategy

for Slowing Climate Change

http://www.igsd.org/docs/BC%20Briefing%2...

Emissions from black carbon (BC), or soot, are the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and reducing these emissions is the fastest strategy for slowing climate change. The most recent estimate of BC forcing, 0.9 watts per square meter (W/m2) (range of 0.4 to 1.2 W/m2), is “as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other GHGs such as CH4, CFCs, N2O, or tropospheric ozone.”1 In some regions, such as the Himalayas, the impact of BC on melting snowpacks and glaciers may be equal to that of CO2.2 BC emissions also significantly contribute to Arctic ice-melt, and reducing such emissions may be “the most efficient way to mitigate Arctic warming that we know of.”3 Since 1950, developed countries have successfully reduced BC emissions by a factor of five, primarily to improve public health, and “technology exists for a drastic reduction of fossil fuel related BC” in the rest of the world.

New study: Ordinary soot second biggest driver of climate change

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/...

After carbon dioxide, the second largest contributor to global warming is ordinary soot, according to new research published Sunday in Nature Geoscience. So-called "black carbon" has up to 60 percent the warming effects of the more oft-noted culprit CO2.

The implication is fairly radical: Quickly reducing soot could have substantial short-term effects on the rate of climate change. Whereas CO2 molecules stay in that atmosphere for years, soot particles stay about a week.

(In 2006, U.S. EPA's Stephen Johnson released soot standards substantially weaker than his scientific advisers recommended.)

Since 40 percent of soot comes from power sources, mainly coal and oil, that also produce CO2, measures to reduce soot would likely reduce other GHGs as well.

The other 60 percent comes from burning biomass, mainly in the developing world, where a great deal of wood is burned for heating and cooking and forests are burned to clear them for agriculture.

---

jim z -

You're the only one here who tries to link anything to the Holocaust.  How could you shamelessly use (misuse) a tragedy like that to further your personal agenda?

Answer 10

The federal government won't solve anything.  You are looking at something to remove money from peoples wallets.  Leftists love the federal government but can provide very little evidence for anything that it ever does that is actually positive.  It is part of the problem and the best solution is to not let it be part of the any supposed solution.  It is not civil to call people deniers.  It is a childish and despicable attempt to link them to Holocaust deniers so your request to be civil is pretty ironic.

Ken suggest that comparison to Holocaust deniers is no more offensive than alarmist.  You kind of have to wonder how someone could say or think that.  It is amazing.

Answer 11

To be honest Dana, I don't trust much of anything the feds do. I feel ignorant because I haven't heard much about either proposed bill, but my inner cynic isn't expecting much. A federal level bill, while it may do some good (which would be great) in my opinion at the moment will most likely have two unintended side effects: Resistance and Apathy.

Some will resist and rebel against it. "s***w those fat cats in Washington, I'm gonna burn this styrofoam!"

and some will be made apathetic by it. "Well there's already laws about this stuff, so why should I bother to take further action in my own life."

I get more excited by grassroots action and small communities that make decisions for themselves to be more self sustaining. Communities that are being built with bikes and pedestrians in mind rather than cars for examples. Or private entities putting up wind turbines. Good question as always though! :)

Answer 12

Hear is the true answer....You don't want to hear a bunch of deniers? Why not? Last I heard we still the ability to descent. Isn't that what you liberals are all about...discent? Us conservatives aren't marching in the street whenever we disagree with something. So now you are a little n**i trying to stifle opinions contrary to your own flawed opinion. What a surprise coming from someone like you!

Just follow the $$$$$$$$$$ on this global warming B.S. Don't be a dumb-a$$ sheeple like the rest of your liberal brethren who have their butts up ALGORE's a$$..

Answer 13

any one after the first 3 on the chart, might as well just make a law requiring everyone to hold their breath for 10 seconds twice daily.

None of them really say they are going to promote waste and reclaimed gases being used as a fuel source, so they are probably pretty much useless until they do.

Answer 14

There is not enough info there to make an informed choice, only what nrdc thinks about them.  As with all legislation the devil is always in the details.

Answer 15

Any program that says "undetermined" is not when I know enough about to "vote"

I'd probably go for the Lieberman-McCain one if I had to choose one. It has a more reasonable cut of emissions.

I'm against any one of them that will tax me for anything that I'm currently using. Like i have to upgrade my car or a/c on my house by a certain date or I'm fined.