Would you sign this pledge? Or would you abstain?

Question

We, the citizens of these United States, pledge to work with the President, the Congress, and the other stakeholders in this great nation, to enact an environmentally effective, economically sustainable, and fair climate change program at the earliest practicable date.

Answer 1

No, because a plan spells out exactly what you are going to do, how you would do it and how much it will cost.  This is just a statement.

Answer 2

yes I would. It's to bad it would have to go through the local governments. There all Liars and Crooks.

Answer 3

I would sign its just I wouldn't follow all of the rules

Answer 4

There aren't many things I abstain from, but how can I pledge to work with Congress and the President when they will not work with me?  Signing the letter while the government is in its current state seems like fraud.

I'd be comfortable signing it when "campaign contributions" become hangable offenses under treason laws...

Answer 5

no, i wouldn't.

the reason is that it leaves the definition of what needs to be done out.

consider what would be included if this were 2003.

however, i am on your side.  :-)

Answer 6

you mean dance with the devil

That is like signing an agreement with a crocodile that we wont eat each other

would you believe the crocodile

Answer 7

ABSTAIN you pay your Clmate TAX

EPW Fact of the Day: Clinton, Obama Sign Onto to Boxer’s $4,500 Climate Tax on American Families May 9, 2007http://www.firesociety.com/article/24204...

Posted by Marc Morano - [e-mail] - 1:34 PM ET   Senate Environment & Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have proposed the "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act" aimed at combating climate change. The proposed partisan bill (S.309) is supported by another 15 senators, including: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY); Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL); Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT); Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-DE); Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA); Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI); Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), and Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD). FACT: A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015. [Read full MIT study]  The Kyoto Protocol would have imposed an equivalent tax of $300 billion a year, 10 times the size of the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. In addition to the MIT study, a new Congressional Budget Office study released recently, details how a carbon cap-and-trade system would result in massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans. [Read more on CBO study] Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), EPW Ranking Member, said today:

"Carbon caps would artificially and needlessly raise the cost of energy the most on the people least able to afford it. It astounds me that any Senator could support such a proposal."

Read Senator Inhofe's full opening statement from today's EPW subcommittee hearing [Link]  

Global Cooling and Climate Cycles

The exploitation of climate science for purely political goals has been occurring throughout the developed world for years. Not long ago, in the 1970s and 80s, many "climate experts" claimed certainty and consensus about global cooling. However, there is nothing especially unusual about the current weather and climate changes. In fact it is generally within long-term normal patterns.

- The Cooling World --Newsweek, April 28, 1975.- Warming Over the Last Century by Roy Spencer, Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center- Temperatures Over the Last 2000 Years, by Roy Spencer- What if we get global cooling instead of warming? by Tim Ball- Early Explorers Documented Climate Change by Tim Ball

Carbon Dioxide .....dangerous?

Humans add to the green house gas concentration by exhaling, harvesting plants, and generating and releasing energy for our homes, cars, factories, etc. All of these actions involve hydrocarbons such as petroleum, coal, and natural gas. Carbon dioxide is not a byproduct or a pollutant but the intended result of energy production. The more efficiently one combusts hydrocarbon, the more CO2 one produces. For this reason, those who are that "energy efficiency" is the solution to global warming are wrong.

- Global Warming, Humans, Carbon Dioxide---Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? by Timothy Ball

- World Temperature Falling Whilst CO2 Keeps Rising---New Proof- A Skeptic's Take on Global Warming by Bill Steigerwald of Human Events

Tax Increases

Americans are about to be hit with a $1.3 trillion tax increase if Al Gore and his radical climate alarmists push succeed in their agenda. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being pushed to create the largest expansion of government power in our nation's history. This massive tax scheme could cripple the economy and allow bureaucrats to tax air.

- CBO Report Exposes Lieberman-Warner Bill's $1.2 Trillion Tax Increase by Marc Morano, Inhofe EPW Press Blog

- Tim Ball, public speaker and climatology consultant says that the federal

government is spending buckets of moneyPart 1, Part 2

- EPW Fact of the Day: Clinton, Obama Sign Onto Boxer's $4,500 Climate Tax on American Families by Marc Morano

Killing Our Economy?

Spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to "fight" global warming just doesn't make sense, and is more likely to ruin economies of first-world nations than make any significant impact.- Roy Spencer, author of Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, says that there is nothing we can do--short of shutting down the global economy. More here- Wake Up Wal-Mart: Global Warming Regulation is Bad for Business by Thomas Borelli

- Mutal Fund Calls on GE to Stop Advocating Global Warming Regulation by Steve Milloy of the Free Enterprise Action Fund- My Take on Gore and Global Warming by Larry Kudlow- Inhofe Praises President Bush for Rejecting Lieberman- Warner Bill

Answer 8

Economically sustainable? What does that mean? Does it mean that the economy would no longer be free to grow to whatever size it could, but instead would remain as it is today and never be allowed to grow? Or does it mean that we'd all be allowed to keep just as much of our earnings as government deems necessary to sustain life?

And please define "fair".

Finally, since the meteorologists and weathermen can't tell us if it will rain next week, why do I want to give up even more of my rights to a bunch of dunderheads who are too stupid or lazy to get a job in the private sector and instead prefer to exact their paychecks from me at gunpoint?

No offense, but you liberals strike me as incredibly stupid. Of course that's just my opinion so I guess you'll need to taze me into submission...

Answer 9

Nope.  It contradicts a pledge I've already made:

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Answer 10

I would sign it AND follow the rules. I really want to make this country have a reduced carbon footprint because that just takes us a step closer to the critical stage of global warming.

If we follow the things we're doing right now, same thing, in the next 20-40 years there wont be enough gas to power our cars, Can you beleive it?

Answer 11

I think you got the priorities reversed, these pledges should be made by the powers-to-be not by the ordinary citizens.

Answer 12

At  this  time  NO,   there  are  all ready many  programs  in  effect  state  by  state  and  watch dog  groups on ones  who have  had  problems  reported in past.  *mamatx

Answer 13

I wouldn't sign it because it is going against Mother Nature. However, I would pledge to try to be more economical and as efficient as possible to save me money and not pollute the environment.

Answer 14

Nope. I'd have to see the plan first to sign something like that. No one will sign something blindly even if the end result could be good.

Answer 15

Why should signing  a pledge be honored? People don't even say the 'Pledge of Allegiance any more--why would they honor this pledge? When the Pledge of Allegiance comes back, I'll sign this one.

Answer 16

I wouldn't sign it.  There is no such thing as climate change or global warming.  The weather we've had is doing what it's supposed to do.