Well, according to this USA Today
article, the Senate is poised to take up debate in early June on a bill that is bound to spark a battle in the Senate. The landmark legislation, given little chance to succeed this time, would impose a cap and trade program to give American companies a financial incentive to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Quote:While it is unlikely to become law this year, the Climate Security Act is seen by both supporters and opponents as evidence of how far Congress has moved on the issue and how quickly a bill is likely to pass after a new president moves into the White House in January and a new Congress takes office.
"I really believe that if we don't get across the finish line this year, we will next year," said bill proponent Jeremy Symons, executive director of the global warming campaign at the National Wildlife Federation. "This is the first bill to have a serious chance of getting passed."
The bill, by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., is the first major global warming legislation to be approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It would reduce global warming emissions by more than 65% by 2050 in an effort to slow devastating climate change that could cause massive flooding along U.S. coasts, increase the number and strength of hurricanes in the Gulf states, create drought throughout the Midwest farm states, and fuel more wildfires in the West.
The legislation seeks to give power plants, factories and refineries a financial incentive to reduce their global warming emissions. The bill would create a "cap and trade" program that limits total U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and gives credits to companies able to cut their emissions through increased energy efficiency or cleaner technology. Companies can then sell those credits to other businesses that have not yet met those goals. Over the next four decades, all the affected industries would gradually have to make deep reductions in their emissions.
Wonderful. Does any reasonable, sane, thinking person think that by passing a bill that will regulate U.S. companies, the temperature of the world will be reduced or even stabilized? Especially when China and India say they will not reduce their own emissions. Add in a growing population worldwide and here in the U.S. due largely to illegal immigration, and it seems silly to me that we can make any difference by passing this legislation. It will come back again and again after it is defeated this year.
Q. - with China and India both refusing to regulate their emissions, what is to stop even more U.S. companies from moving their factories and plants overseas where they can spit out as much CO2 as they want?
Just more evidence of incompetence in Washington. As one commenter wrote (and I couldn't have said it better myself):
There is no problem too great that politicians and the governments they run can't make worse while wasting millions and billions of dollars in the process. And then when their solution doesn't solve the problem they blame the people for not doing the "right" thing.
Or, create other, bigger problems while "solving" this one.
Is the "cure" for the great affliction of manmade global warming going to be worse than the disease itself?
Basically, all three candidates for President agree with this scheme. However, I seem to remember that the Clinton administration was against a cap and trade program, as were a number of government agencies back then for the damage it would do to our economy. Seems that those in our government have short institutional memories.... but then, they are counting on the fact that their orchestrated propaganda campaign has swayed enough people to believe the manmade GW myth. It's not smart politically these days to be publically on record as against GW. Even poor old W, in an effort to create some kind of legacy for himself other than Iraq, has embraced the myth. However, should it miraculously pass this time around, he will probably veto it.