« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
The Washington Post this morning offers an excellent overview of Democratic prospects for legislation on global warming.
House Speaker Pelosi is pushing hard on the issue, creating a special committee to handle it. Trouble is, that committee tramples on Rep. John Dingell's (D-MI) turf, who heads up the Energy and Commerce Committee, a strong-arm move that even has Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) comparing her tactics to "the way the Republicans did it."
But Pelosi wants to get out front of the issue, something the slow-moving Dingell (the Post points out that "environmentalists dubbed him 'Tailpipe Johnny' during the acid-rain debate" in the late 80's) won't do. Dingell favors a more slow roll approach, holding hearings to "investigate the problem, if in fact it is a problem, and what it might cost to try to address it." And Waxman, who favors very tough emission restrictions, but doesn't think such a bill would have a prayer of passing in this Congress, will spend his time holding hearings on his oversight committee to "expose GOP intransigence" on the issue.
But there's a third camp -- the middle of the road camp that wants something that Bush might actually sign. Trouble is, legislators like Waxman who want strong action aren't likely to support legislation they view as weak.
Meanwhile, big coal, big oil, and other industry power players, aren't too worried:
Industry lobbyists say they expect to endure a lot of unpleasant climate hearings during this Congress, but they are not too worried about draconian legislation. They do not think the House or the Senate can pass anything too stringent, much less override a Bush veto. And they say their focus groups show that the public's eagerness to do something about global warming droops after hearing warnings of serious economic consequences.With trillions of dollars at stake, it is reasonable to expect industry-funded ads to raise those alarms, in the vein of the "Harry and Louise" spots that helped sink President Bill Clinton's health-care plans.
"If you're a Democrat in a moderate district, this is not the kind of vote you want to take," said Myron Ebell, director of global-warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded think tank. "I think Democrats are really going to disappoint the enviros over the next two years, because all they're going to do is talk."
Comments (24)
Crust wrote on January 23, 2007 9:31 AM:I think you meant: "Meanwhile, big coal, big oil, and other industry power players, SAY THEY aren't too worried:" Big difference. How worried they really are is hard to say.
Also, I don't really get this paragraph:
"But there's a third camp -- the middle of the road camp that wants something that Bush might actually sign. Trouble is, legislators like Waxman who want strong action aren't likely to support legislation they view as weak."
It seems to me that first you fight for what you want and then if you don't get it, you take what you can get. Surely Waxman et al. will vote for milder legislation if previously stronger legislation didn't pass or was vetoed. This approach also gives more cover to self-styled moderates on both sides of the aisle: they can say they voted against the "extreme" form of the bill before the for the "moderate" form.
Rich wrote on January 23, 2007 9:37 AM:I think the strategy on global warming should be coupled with an effort to cut down our reliance on Middle East oil. Even people who are in denial on global warming have to be concerned about funding terrorist organizations, right? In that way, we cut down on fossil fuel consumption for reasons other than global warming, but the environmental effect is still salutary, and we also reap geopolitical benefits.
Crust wrote on January 23, 2007 9:59 AM:I agree with you, Rich. For every dollar that is spent on oil, perhaps a few pennies go to fund terrorism. Reducing our consumption of oil would reduce the international price of oil and therefore reduce funds for terrorism. Five years ago after 9/11, when everyone was asking what can we do to sacrifice to help, that was the best time to do something about it (raise the gas tax or at least raise CAFE standards). But better late than never; hopefully something will happen now.
cromulant wrote on January 23, 2007 10:08 AM:I also agree with Rich. I smell DNC fecklessness at a time when a very straightforward connection could be made in the minds of Americans about what they can do to fight terrorism. In fact, Bush used all the right words before, but did nothing about it. The mid-terms have opened the door to a second chance. Use it.
Corvid wrote on January 23, 2007 10:11 AM:I'd rather the Dems just dropped the subject of global warming. To take any kind of action that falls short of reducing worldwide carbon and methane emissions by at least 50 percent over the next 5 to 10 years will simply not do anything to solve the problem. Even dramatic action by their lights will fail to meet the 50 percent bottom line, thus giving the public the false impression that the situation has been effectively addressed. We may as well have our SUVs and function under the happy delusion that global warming is a fraud, rather than discomfort ourselves with half measures that do absolutely no good and kid ourselves into thinking that we are somehow virtuously providing for the survival of future generations. This is really an all-or-nothing situation, and we are on the verge of the greatest political and market failure in the short, sorry history of our species. I understand that this sounds extreme, but occasionally the extremists are 100 percent right and the moderates are 100 percent wrong. This is where we stand now. It's silly to pretend otherwise.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2007 10:34 AM:What "serious economic consequences" can compare with completely destroying the planet as we know it? As a nation, we need to get off our collective asses and do something right now.
CLD wrote on January 23, 2007 10:35 AM:Sorry -- the previous post was mine.
Crust wrote on January 23, 2007 10:37 AM:No, Corvid I don't see why it is all or nothing (is this a reference to Hansen's turning point in next 10 years comment?). Even if that was correct, starting some relatively modest changes now would likely make it politically easier to make bigger changes a couple of years from now.
wial wrote on January 23, 2007 10:43 AM:Global warming is happening, is worse than expected, and has already started natural positive feedback loops such as the release of CO2 from the permafrost. The melting of the methane clathrate deposits on the ocean floor is soon to follow, an event that correlates in the fossil record with mass extinctions. Only drastic actions such as rockets releasing sulphur into the stratosphere, or a huge veil filtering the sun in space, can stop it now. Even such measures though are only temporary fixes and do not absolve us from the responsibility of learning to live on this planet sustainably. The sooner we start down that road the better. It is not too late, because the big fixes will buy us time. Therefore, I think we should support any and all legislation towards the goal of restored sanity and restraint, for practice if nothing else. The economy should serve the ecosystem, not the other way around. Someday perhaps, humanity will reach that realization.
Couser wrote on January 23, 2007 11:11 AM:Crust,
The world consumes +/- 85 million barrels of oil a day
If a barrel costs $50 per barrel - the world spends
$ 4.2 billion on oil a day
If terrorists receive $0.02 of each of $ 4.2 the world's terrorists receive +/- $ 8 million daily.
Not evan Aury Goldfinger could dream of thaat largess.
Crust wrote on January 23, 2007 11:16 AM:You're right, Couser. Even "pennies per dollar" is an exaggeration by orders of magnitude. That was loose rhetoric; my bad. But I think my broader point still stands.
couser wrote on January 23, 2007 11:25 AM:Crust,
I might have dropped a '0' somewhere in my calcs.
Add to this though, the US's proportion of this is +/- %25...still a billion a day and at whatever the percent that goes to terrorist is a big number...
More depressing, and unstabiling a thought is not that large sums of monies from the sale of oil go to terroists but that a large proportion of oil monies go for the purchase of huge amounts of armaments and armies by all governments and organizations.
Finley wrote on January 23, 2007 11:38 AM:Allong the lines of what rich was saying... The environmentalist have to become pragmatists. They have to find ways to co-opt the traditional deniers of global warming or at least marginalize them. For instance, what if the next president were to declare and "energy independence initiative" that was similar to the Apollo program, in that it is a huge initiative with an ambitious but specific technical goal: become a net exporter of energy in 10 years. Corporate america, worried about our economic reliance on the most unstable regions of the world could be brought on board using economic arguements. Environmentalist, because a large part of the increase in energy output would be from renewables, and perhaps also reductions in consumption (raising fuel standards etc). You could even throw a few bones to the oil companies by allowing them to drill in new areas or something. An initiative like this might give the country focus, and inspire more young people to go into technical fields, just as the Apollo program did in the sixties. If this proposal was correctly framed by the right politician who could oppose it?
pt bridgeport wrote on January 23, 2007 12:01 PM:I agree with the thrust of wial's comment, and there certainly are feedback loops beginning to kick in. The great bulk of methane clathrates, however, are in deep enough water (and, hey, global warming will make it deeper!) to prevent any near term release. (The temperature required to release their methane rises with increased pressure.) It will take something like a ten degree C rise to do the trick. A real problem in the next century; not in this one.
Ron wrote on January 23, 2007 12:16 PM:I think the comment
"...And they say their focus groups show that the public's eagerness to do something about global warming droops after hearing warnings of serious economic consequences. "
Writes off public opinion too easily. I believe people in general are sensing something is very wrong with the weather. The general public is becoming more prone to accepting that concept of drastic climate change with serious negative impacts and just might be in the mood to start accepting remedies.
Dark Star wrote on January 23, 2007 12:52 PM:If you take out the doomsday rhetoric just the likelihood of more extreme weather has serious economic consequences. How much did the winter storm that moved over the entire United States cost.
Think about it. Lost work days, crashed cars, trucks overturning, downed power lines, cattle being fed by helicopter or dying, everybody's heating turned up (if they had power), crop losses in California. I'd like to see an analysis of the total economic cost of that one slow and vicious storm.
Dark Star wrote on January 23, 2007 12:53 PM:I forgot to mention loss of life.
shams wrote on January 23, 2007 5:12 PM:Dingell is from MICHIGAN. He's a union democrat and can never be out front on this for obvious reasons. Even he must admit privately that the end-run is necessary.
Healthy Skeptic wrote on January 23, 2007 7:32 PM:I don't believe we should go about willy-nilly pumping filth into our world. Clean is good.
Can we do better with our transportation systems (higher mpg's, more mass trans, less emissions)? Absolutely.
Energy independence would be a fantastic deal for us, and--by the way--we do have the technology to burn coal very cleanly, if we could just get our utilities and the coal industry off their duffs. Solar and wind power might be an answer (though, check out the dirty little secret of wind power below).
What I detest, though, are the screaming Chicken Little's who are determined that we all accept "Global Warming" as fact.
Just as they did in 2000 with their scare mongering about the ozone hole over the Antarctic and that we were all going to die tomorrow.
Just as they did in the eighties with dioxin. Sure cancer for all of us--remember?
Just as they do even today with their claims of 40,000 birds killed per year by windmill and cellphone towers.
Hey, speaking of birds, aren't we supposed to be smack in the middle of the bird flu PANDEMIC about now? Millions of Americans dead? More millions deathly ill?
I have a friend who works for NOAA and likes to joke about that many of the scientists who now scream GLOBAL WARMING are the same folks who used to scream NEW ICE AGE in the eighties (which is not to be confused with the mini new ice age of 2002 that global warming supposedly will bring).
Truth, kids: we don't know whether global warming is fact. IT MAY BE. It also may not be. Let's find out, but please, let's acquire knowledge in a sane manner.
Dark Star wrote on January 23, 2007 8:06 PM:Healthy Skeptic,
You should perhaps consider the animals affected by the fossil fuel industry. Oil spills kill birds. Birds are also killed around refineries. Coal generating plants that take water for cooling from rivers have dumpsters with dead fish (stinky) where the filters are emptied. I do detest the bird kills from wind energy, but I think you shgould look at both sides.
Sten3023 wrote on February 24, 2007 9:21 PM:[url=http://entertainment.freehostgroup.com/view.php?id=54690]Miss World 2006 Crowned[/url] * [url=http://faith.greatdnshost.com/view.php?id=54692]Revelation 3[/url] * [url=http://fiction.megajobssearch.com/view.php?id=54694]Sweet Dream[/url] Miss World 2006 Crowned | Revelation 3 | Sweet Dream http://entertainment.freehostgroup.com/view.php?id=54690 http://faith.greatdnshost.com/view.php?id=54692 http://fiction.megajobssearch.com/view.php?id=54694
jonn2 wrote on October 19, 2007 1:51 PM:S75L9C comment4 , hombres negros desnudos[url="http://hombres-negros-desnudos.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]hombres negros desnudos[/url]http://hombres-negros-desnudos.xualxdim.cn/index.html hombres negros desnudos 8(, terrain amphibie[url="http://terrain-amphibie.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]terrain amphibie[/url]http://terrain-amphibie.xualxdim.cn/index.html terrain amphibie >:-), hombres peludos [url="http://hombres-peludos.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]hombres peludos [/url]http://hombres-peludos.xualxdim.cn/index.html hombres peludos plgm, free digimon battle games online [url="http://free-digimon-battle-games-online.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]free digimon battle games online [/url]http://free-digimon-battle-games-online.xualxdim.cn/index.html free digimon battle games online 534513, tvsex [url="http://tvsex.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]tvsex [/url]http://tvsex.xualxdim.cn/index.html tvsex gdoam, suzana mancic [url="http://suzana-mancic.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]suzana mancic [/url]http://suzana-mancic.xualxdim.cn/index.html suzana mancic smgw,
jonn2 wrote on October 19, 2007 1:51 PM:S75L9C comment4 , hombres negros desnudos[url="http://hombres-negros-desnudos.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]hombres negros desnudos[/url]http://hombres-negros-desnudos.xualxdim.cn/index.html hombres negros desnudos 8(, terrain amphibie[url="http://terrain-amphibie.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]terrain amphibie[/url]http://terrain-amphibie.xualxdim.cn/index.html terrain amphibie >:-), hombres peludos [url="http://hombres-peludos.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]hombres peludos [/url]http://hombres-peludos.xualxdim.cn/index.html hombres peludos plgm, free digimon battle games online [url="http://free-digimon-battle-games-online.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]free digimon battle games online [/url]http://free-digimon-battle-games-online.xualxdim.cn/index.html free digimon battle games online 534513, tvsex [url="http://tvsex.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]tvsex [/url]http://tvsex.xualxdim.cn/index.html tvsex gdoam, suzana mancic [url="http://suzana-mancic.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]suzana mancic [/url]http://suzana-mancic.xualxdim.cn/index.html suzana mancic smgw,
jonn2 wrote on October 19, 2007 1:52 PM:S75L9C comment4 , hombres negros desnudos[url="http://hombres-negros-desnudos.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]hombres negros desnudos[/url]http://hombres-negros-desnudos.xualxdim.cn/index.html hombres negros desnudos 8(, terrain amphibie[url="http://terrain-amphibie.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]terrain amphibie[/url]http://terrain-amphibie.xualxdim.cn/index.html terrain amphibie >:-), hombres peludos [url="http://hombres-peludos.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]hombres peludos [/url]http://hombres-peludos.xualxdim.cn/index.html hombres peludos plgm, free digimon battle games online [url="http://free-digimon-battle-games-online.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]free digimon battle games online [/url]http://free-digimon-battle-games-online.xualxdim.cn/index.html free digimon battle games online 534513, tvsex [url="http://tvsex.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]tvsex [/url]http://tvsex.xualxdim.cn/index.html tvsex gdoam, suzana mancic [url="http://suzana-mancic.xualxdim.cn/index.html"]suzana mancic [/url]http://suzana-mancic.xualxdim.cn/index.html suzana mancic smgw,