by Mark Silva
Will the "cap and trade'' legislation that the House has passed and the Senate is weighing cost people money?
"Yes sir,'' says one of the Senate sponsors, Sen. John Kerry.
The cost of inaction, he says, is far worse.
The debate over what the United States can do about curtailing global warming is underway this week in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The legislation would cap the greenhouse gases that power plants and major manufacturers emit, with a goal of reducing emissions 80 percent by mid-century. It narrowly cleared the House, with the help of a handful of Republicans, including Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois.
"Are there some costs? Yes sir, there are some costs," said Kerry (D-Mass.). While an array of studies show that restricting greenhouse gases will lead to higher energy prices, the senator told the committee today, "none of them factor in the cost of doing nothing."
The Senate's Democrats aren't finding as many willing players among Republicans, and some of the Senate's Democrats have their own demands on legislation which the White House has allowed is unlikely to be finished this year.
"Cap and trade is very expensive,'' said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), at today's hearing. This is something the American people can't tolerate and I don' think they will.''
While Inhofe challenges the basic science behind the climate change which sponsors are attempting to address, Kerry maintains that voluntary action will not contain the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being trapped in the atmosphere - a cause of dangerous warming of the earth, according to many climate scientists.
"Not taking action is more expensive," Kerry said. "America's leadership is on the line here.''
The Obama administration is pressing for action on the energy bill.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that if the United States does not develop and produce clean energy -- with wind and solar power and new batteries -- "China and other countries will."
"Only new legislation can bring about the comprehensive and integrated changes that are needed to restore America's economic health and keep the nation secure over the long term," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told the committee.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is among the Democrats with "serious reservations" about the bill's aggressive cuts in emissions over the next decade -- cutting greenhouse gases by 20 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels, and 43 percent by 2030.
"Montana can't afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change," Baucus said, " "But we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of climate change legislation."
The Associated Press provided the comments for this report.
Comments
This is Johnny Denial and Terry Trickle's cue to make the thoroughly debunked claim that the "world is actually cooling" and global warming is a hoax.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-10-26-global-cooling-rejected_N.htm
Posted by: America the Stupid | October 27, 2009 1:14 PM
Let me get this straight, the environment can't wait, but our men in uniform can. Is this the same Kerry? This is how you know he's totting party line propaganda, and exactly the reason a nice guy like him couldn't stand the election heat.
Posted by: No ifs ands or buts about Afganistan | October 27, 2009 1:36 PM
The "so called science" behind global warming is total bunk. Any scientist without a political agenda would not use the urban temperatures from land based readings, that have been thrown off by radiant heat from things like asphalt, buildings and even metal from junk dumped near one monitoring site. Satellite readings of the atmosphere that are extremely accurate show NO rise in earth's temperature. You've been had!
Global warming during Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example:
Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.
By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.
Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.
Posted by: The Real Gary | October 27, 2009 2:55 PM
If 6 out of 10 Americans support it, you can be sure the GOP opposes it.
.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/27/cnn-poll-6-in-10-back-cap-and-trade/
.
Posted by: former Republican | October 27, 2009 4:48 PM
Now I read in the AJC, that some scientists are claiming planet cooling.Until this issue is proven one way or the other, I say drill and explore and go nuclear. We need not be dependent on foreign oil, we have much more reserves than all of the mid-east. So drill offshore and in Utah and Anwar, and if Pelosi and the other bleeding heart liberals don't like it vote them out of office asap.
Posted by: Paul | October 27, 2009 6:16 PM
Ahhh, the ole global warming debate again with a link to an AP article that says there is no cooling, despite the fact that there is.
But I'll put my money in information that uses links to actual data that shows what is taking place temperature-wise.
http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
I'll also put my money on the fact that this decade will go down as having the LEAST amount of 90-degree days in Chicago's recorded history (and for several decades Chicago's official temps were along the lakefront where it is cooler), according to Tom Skilling's recent Weather Page.
Here are more facts:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/dec/19/year-of-global-cooling/
From this article, come these tidbits:
South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure.
Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.
FACTS, people, FACTS!!!
Here again: Conservatives shown to be SMART, Liberals, as usual, shown to be DUMB!
Posted by: John D, still right, as usual | October 27, 2009 6:41 PM
Stupid Trickled On John E,
An solution looking for a problem.
30 years (maybe) of global warming on a planet that is 300,000,000 years old - do the math
Maybe Teresa's Husband should start cleaning the enivironment at home first
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/99/266529109_4130cc5ac1.jpg?v=0
Posted by: Terry | October 27, 2009 7:59 PM
Even if you deny that it's important to reduce pollution and modernize aging power plants in use today (and if you do, shame on you), why block the economic progress this bill would make possible?
Many newer energy companies are just waiting for the bill to pass so their businesses can grow.
It's not like Republicans to get in the way of economic progress, but after listening to them blather for the past six months, I'm not surprised at anything they spew out now.
Wake up Republicans and support this bill.
Posted by: Nick | October 28, 2009 12:53 AM
Terry Niggles and Johnny Dead-ender:
"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."
.
Once a flat-earther always a flat-earther.
.
"30 years (maybe) of global warming on a planet that is 300,000,000 years old - do the math"
I'd suggest you tune in to National Geographic's 'Six Degrees Celcius', but that would require that you pull your head out of yer arse...er, the sand.
Posted by: America the Stupid | October 28, 2009 2:48 AM
Baucus is a good example of someone who believes in climate change, yet doesn't believe in climate change legislation. There are many more like him. So, now we have people from both sides of the climate debate saying cap and trade will be bad for America. Why are some members of Congress still pushing it through? Write your legislators at http://dontcapandtradeourjobs.net/?tr8 and voice opposition to this economically devastating bill.
Posted by: CnT Cynic | October 28, 2009 8:51 AM
Stupid Trickled On John E,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ceaedb7-802a-23ad-4bfe-9e32747616f9
Try a little history - for example, the Medieval Climate Optimum. Ever hear of Leif Ericson?
http://www.leifericson.us/
Posted by: Terry | October 28, 2009 7:51 PM