| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Tom Jefferson" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2003 10:50:07 PM |
| Object: |
California burns as GOP Senators fiddle. |
Senate Defeats Climate Bill, but Proponents See Silver Lining
By JENNIFER 8. LEE and ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: October 31, 2003
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — The Senate defeated a bill on Thursday to combat
global warming by restricting the emissions of carbon dioxide and other
heat-trapping gases.
The 55-to-43 vote was the Senate's first vote on such a bill, and proponents
said it had won a surprising amount of support, signaling that the concept
of a policy on global warming has gained traction.
The measure's opponents, meanwhile, hailed the defeat, saying it was a
vindication of their view that the bill would harm the economy and drive
companies overseas.
Six Republicans joined Democrats in backing the measure, breaking ranks with
the Bush administration, which opposes mandatory controls.
The bill's sponsors, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator
Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said the vote was a first step
in an inevitable move toward reducing the human contribution to global
warming.
"We will be back on this issue just like we were back on the issue of
campaign finance reform," Mr. McCain said in the Senate debate.
The Republican senators backing the bill were Mr. McCain, Richard G. Lugar
of Indiana, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New
Hampshire and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
The vote was the first time the Senate has taken up specific legislation to
restrict emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. In 1997,
just before the talks that eventually led to the international climate
treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol, senators passed a resolution to reject
any treaty that significantly harmed the American economy or that failed to
include third-world countries. The protocol, which was rejected by President
Bush in 2001, did exempt developing countries.
Thursday's vote, supporters of the bill said, reflected a growing concern
among voters about global warming. Recent polls, including one by The New
York Times, show that Americans strongly support actions to curb emissions
of heat-trapping gases.
In the poll, conducted Sept. 15 and 16, 66 percent of the 675 adults
surveyed said they knew at least something about global warming. More than
80 percent supported higher mileage standards for cars and trucks as a way
to cut climate and pollution risks, and 69 percent said they would support
such standards even if it meant paying more for a car.
Attitudes about higher prices for gasoline or other fuels, however, were
mixed. When asked if they would be willing to pay an extra 25 cents a gallon
for gasoline to reduce pollution and global warming, 50 percent of those
familiar with the issue said no, while 46 percent said yes.
Opponents of the bill said the support it had received meant little, because
the senators were aware that the bill would never win approval in the House.
Many voted for it only because doing so allowed them to gain points with
environmentalists while avoiding true political costs, the opponents said.
"In actuality," said Scott Segal, executive director of the Electric
Reliability Coordination Council, a coalition of six major power companies,
"the vote shows that most senators are extremely reluctant to potentially
handicap the U.S. economy and energy production."
The backers of the bill argued that not taking action to slow global warming
would also have severe economic consequences. In the debate, Senator Daniel
Akaka, Democrat of Hawaii, and Senator Snowe, of Maine, said that rising sea
levels and increasing temperatures would hurt agriculture and tourism in
their states.
The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's population,
accounts for 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
The bill would have required that companies restrict carbon dioxide
emissions so that they will be no higher in 2010 than they were in 2000.
Homes, farms and small businesses would have been exempt.
The proposal was far more modest than the Kyoto Protocol, which called for a
7 percent reduction in emissions in the United States from 1990 levels by
2010. The protocol also included a second phase that was to begin in 2016.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman modeled the bill after acid rain programs that
were included in 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/politics/31WARM.html?ex=1068181200&en=
7a1a4ed3ae6e7529&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
--
A hard truth appears to have escaped the notice of the public and received
scant attention from the media: Bush is the first president in American
history to use deceptive propaganda as his main means of communications in
selling his policies. His pattern of deception continues unabated and in
direct conflict with the notion of the public's informed consent that is
central to American democracy.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/6378746.htm
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California burns as GOP Senators fiddle. |
30 Oct 2003 11:00:02 PM |
|
|
Senate Defeats Climate Bill, but Proponents See Silver Lining
By JENNIFER 8. LEE and ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: October 31, 2003
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — The Senate defeated a bill on Thursday to combat
global warming by restricting the emissions of carbon dioxide and other
heat-trapping gases.
The 55-to-43 vote was the Senate's first vote on such a bill, and proponents
said it had won a surprising amount of support, signaling that the concept
of a policy on global warming has gained traction.
The measure's opponents, meanwhile, hailed the defeat, saying it was a
vindication of their view that the bill would harm the economy and drive
companies overseas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........harm the economy and drive companies overseas........."
Green policies create a new economy and new jobs.
For example, people have to build and install those solar panels.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Six Republicans joined Democrats in backing the measure, breaking ranks with
the Bush administration, which opposes mandatory controls.
The bill's sponsors, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator
Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said the vote was a first step
in an inevitable move toward reducing the human contribution to global
warming.
"We will be back on this issue just like we were back on the issue of
campaign finance reform," Mr. McCain said in the Senate debate.
The Republican senators backing the bill were Mr. McCain, Richard G. Lugar
of Indiana, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New
Hampshire and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
The vote was the first time the Senate has taken up specific legislation to
restrict emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. In 1997,
just before the talks that eventually led to the international climate
treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol, senators passed a resolution to reject
any treaty that significantly harmed the American economy or that failed to
include third-world countries. The protocol, which was rejected by President
Bush in 2001, did exempt developing countries.
Thursday's vote, supporters of the bill said, reflected a growing concern
among voters about global warming. Recent polls, including one by The New
York Times, show that Americans strongly support actions to curb emissions
of heat-trapping gases.
In the poll, conducted Sept. 15 and 16, 66 percent of the 675 adults
surveyed said they knew at least something about global warming. More than
80 percent supported higher mileage standards for cars and trucks as a way
to cut climate and pollution risks, and 69 percent said they would support
such standards even if it meant paying more for a car.
Attitudes about higher prices for gasoline or other fuels, however, were
mixed. When asked if they would be willing to pay an extra 25 cents a gallon
for gasoline to reduce pollution and global warming, 50 percent of those
familiar with the issue said no, while 46 percent said yes.
Opponents of the bill said the support it had received meant little, because
the senators were aware that the bill would never win approval in the House.
Many voted for it only because doing so allowed them to gain points with
environmentalists while avoiding true political costs, the opponents said.
"In actuality," said Scott Segal, executive director of the Electric
Reliability Coordination Council, a coalition of six major power companies,
"the vote shows that most senators are extremely reluctant to potentially
handicap the U.S. economy and energy production."
The backers of the bill argued that not taking action to slow global warming
would also have severe economic consequences. In the debate, Senator Daniel
Akaka, Democrat of Hawaii, and Senator Snowe, of Maine, said that rising sea
levels and increasing temperatures would hurt agriculture and tourism in
their states.
The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's population,
accounts for 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
The bill would have required that companies restrict carbon dioxide
emissions so that they will be no higher in 2010 than they were in 2000.
Homes, farms and small businesses would have been exempt.
The proposal was far more modest than the Kyoto Protocol, which called for a
7 percent reduction in emissions in the United States from 1990 levels by
2010. The protocol also included a second phase that was to begin in 2016.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman modeled the bill after acid rain programs that
were included in 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/politics/31WARM.html?ex=1068181200&en=
7a1a4ed3ae6e7529&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
.
|
|
|
| User: "Plonk!" |
|
| Title: Re: California burns as GOP Senators fiddle. |
30 Oct 2003 11:09:51 PM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ppq3qv0mrkvquktut6vnruv03jb3f3sn84@4ax.com...
Senate Defeats Climate Bill, but Proponents See Silver Lining
By JENNIFER 8. LEE and ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: October 31, 2003
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 - The Senate defeated a bill on Thursday to combat
global warming by restricting the emissions of carbon dioxide and other
heat-trapping gases.
The 55-to-43 vote was the Senate's first vote on such a bill, and
proponents
said it had won a surprising amount of support, signaling that the
concept
of a policy on global warming has gained traction.
The measure's opponents, meanwhile, hailed the defeat, saying it was a
vindication of their view that the bill would harm the economy and drive
companies overseas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........harm the economy and drive companies overseas........."
Green policies create a new economy and new jobs.
For example, people have to build and install those solar panels.
Perhaps moron, but does that off-set the extra costs of fuel and emission
control systems? NO.
Farming costs shoot up, production costs go up, produce cost to consumers
rises.......
Yes, encourage alternative energy, but do not mandate it. Competition is a
wonderful thing. Look at how organic produce is outgaining chemically
produced vegetables, fruits and meats.
Manipulate the market not the government.
Look at how safety played a role in selling cars, without the need for
government mandate. Crash test ratings sell cars.
All companies have to be persuaded to do is have consumers tell them they
desire energy consciuos products, that is already starting to take place in
sales of air conditioning, refrigerators, computers etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Six Republicans joined Democrats in backing the measure, breaking ranks
with
the Bush administration, which opposes mandatory controls.
The bill's sponsors, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and
Senator
Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said the vote was a first
step
in an inevitable move toward reducing the human contribution to global
warming.
"We will be back on this issue just like we were back on the issue of
campaign finance reform," Mr. McCain said in the Senate debate.
The Republican senators backing the bill were Mr. McCain, Richard G.
Lugar
of Indiana, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of
New
Hampshire and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
The vote was the first time the Senate has taken up specific legislation
to
restrict emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. In
1997,
just before the talks that eventually led to the international climate
treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol, senators passed a resolution to
reject
any treaty that significantly harmed the American economy or that failed
to
include third-world countries. The protocol, which was rejected by
President
Bush in 2001, did exempt developing countries.
Thursday's vote, supporters of the bill said, reflected a growing concern
among voters about global warming. Recent polls, including one by The New
York Times, show that Americans strongly support actions to curb
emissions
of heat-trapping gases.
In the poll, conducted Sept. 15 and 16, 66 percent of the 675 adults
surveyed said they knew at least something about global warming. More
than
80 percent supported higher mileage standards for cars and trucks as a
way
to cut climate and pollution risks, and 69 percent said they would
support
such standards even if it meant paying more for a car.
Attitudes about higher prices for gasoline or other fuels, however, were
mixed. When asked if they would be willing to pay an extra 25 cents a
gallon
for gasoline to reduce pollution and global warming, 50 percent of those
familiar with the issue said no, while 46 percent said yes.
Opponents of the bill said the support it had received meant little,
because
the senators were aware that the bill would never win approval in the
House.
Many voted for it only because doing so allowed them to gain points with
environmentalists while avoiding true political costs, the opponents
said.
"In actuality," said Scott Segal, executive director of the Electric
Reliability Coordination Council, a coalition of six major power
companies,
"the vote shows that most senators are extremely reluctant to potentially
handicap the U.S. economy and energy production."
The backers of the bill argued that not taking action to slow global
warming
would also have severe economic consequences. In the debate, Senator
Daniel
Akaka, Democrat of Hawaii, and Senator Snowe, of Maine, said that rising
sea
levels and increasing temperatures would hurt agriculture and tourism in
their states.
The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's population,
accounts for 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
The bill would have required that companies restrict carbon dioxide
emissions so that they will be no higher in 2010 than they were in 2000.
Homes, farms and small businesses would have been exempt.
The proposal was far more modest than the Kyoto Protocol, which called
for a
7 percent reduction in emissions in the United States from 1990 levels
by
2010. The protocol also included a second phase that was to begin in
2016.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman modeled the bill after acid rain programs
that
were included in 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/politics/31WARM.html?ex=1068181200&en
=
7a1a4ed3ae6e7529&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marinus van der Lubbe" |
|
| Title: Re: California burns as GOP Senators fiddle. |
30 Oct 2003 11:38:10 PM |
|
|
of a policy on global warming has gained traction.
The measure's opponents, meanwhile, hailed the defeat, saying it was a
vindication of their view that the bill would harm the economy and
drive
companies overseas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........harm the economy and drive companies overseas........."
Green policies create a new economy and new jobs.
For example, people have to build and install those solar panels.
Perhaps moron, but does that off-set the extra costs of fuel and emission
control systems? NO.
Farming costs shoot up, production costs go up, produce cost to consumers
rises.......
We just spent $250 billion on succoring 110 billion barrels of oil in Iraq,
don't tell me using fossil fuels is cheap.
If Bush's daddy was a solar panel manufacturer, if the green industries
along with Detroit were constantly changing laws the in Congress to boost
their corporate profits, then maybe the USA might not be a better place to
live but at least we would not be putting down insurrections throughout
Central Asia from Palestine to Nepal. It's hard to get angry at a country
that promotes self-sufficiency rather than global military-corporate
vampirism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Plonk!" |
|
| Title: Re: California burns as GOP Senators fiddle. |
30 Oct 2003 10:55:07 PM |
|
|
The subject line of this thread in no way reflects accurately as to the
subject of the posted article.
Further, why the hell should legislation be passed regarding global warming
when such an issue is so unknown anyway?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California burns as GOP Senators fiddle. |
30 Oct 2003 11:05:26 PM |
|
|
eco disaster looming in Alaska
____________________________________________________________________________________
If dramatic action is not taken soon the effects of global warming in Alaska may be irreversible.
It's hard not to take global warming personally in Alaska.
Alaskan Natives have an intimate connection to the land and the sea.
They use seal and caribou feed their families.
They use plants for food and medicine.
They need the solid ground to support their ancestral homes.
Alaskan Natives can't harvest animals and fish because the thickness of the sea ice has changed.
It has become too dangerous for them to go onto the ice because the ice has become too thin.
Sea ice off western and northern Alaska has decreased by almost 10% in the past 30 years.
The Bering Sea is one of the world's richest marine environments.
This environment is now threatened because of retreating ice.
The ice edge has sustained people and animals for centuries.
The eastern section of this sea is roughly the size of California.
This is home to seals, whales, polar bears, walrus, and millions of migratory birds.
But the area is changing rapidly.
There is less and less subsistence food.
Last year the local people could not harvest enough fish to feed their village.
Climate change could be the most important factor in changing the local people since the 19th century.
During the last 30 years arctic Alaskan temperature has risen more than 4 degrees.
Alaska's temperature rise is twice as much as the rest of the world.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
At the current rate, arctic temperatures could be almost 15 degrees warmer 100 years from now.
At the current rate, arctic warming will likely result in the melting of the permafrost and the destruction
of the boreal forest.
This is a mounting disaster.
In the far north, polar bears patrol the pack ice hunting for ringed seals.
More than 90% of a polar bear's diet is ringed seals.
Seals depend on the pack ice for resting and raising their pups.
Half of the polar bears of the Beaufort Sea, den on the ice.
The ice is thinning in many places.
This thinning is an average of eight feet thick reduced to four feet thick.
A 100% melt of the pack ice is possible.
This could happen in a time scale of between 50 and 200 years.
Global warming threatens enormous changes to Alaska's landmass.
Permafrost underlies more than 80% of Alaska.
This permafrost is starting to thaw.
Many areas are 4 to 7 degrees warmer than they were 50 to 100 years ago.
Some sections of permafrost are within 4 degrees of a 100% thaw.
Permafrost traps the little rain which falls.
This nourishes a variety of plant life.
Without this trapped rain much of the arctic would be lifeless desert.
There is a connection between permafrost and the arctic ecosystem.
Boreal forests grow over the permafrost.
If the permafrost continues to melt the boreal forests could become dry steppe.
Nearly a third of Alaska is covered by boreal forest.
This forest is already drier.
In the past eight years spruce bark beetle infestations have claimed over 2 million acres of Alaskan forest.
This forest was once healthy.
This is the greatest recorded incidence of insect destruction in North America.
Trees are dead.
Because of the dead trees these areas are highly vulnerable to wildfires.
Permafrost melted away could lead to a dry tundra.
This would force caribou and musk ox to forage for less-nutritious vegetation.
Caribou and musk ox are living links to the last ice age.
Additional carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere by thawed permafrost.
Global warming is being accelerated by this thawing permafrost.
Permafrost serves as the foundation for most rural Alaskan homes.
The villagers of Shishmaref and Kivalina may have to move from their ancestral lands.
Melting permafrost plus wind erosion has nearly destroyed their land.
If nothing is done there might not be any polar bears in the future.
An arctic without sea ice could result in the loss of the polar bears.
That could be the end of the ancient way of life of Alaskan Natives.
____________________________________________________________________________________
This is only a synopsis.
Read the full text at this www site :
http://www.findarticles.com/m1525/3_85/62828693/p1/article.jhtml
____________________________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Plonk!" |
|
| Title: Re: California burns as GOP Senators fiddle. |
30 Oct 2003 11:17:49 PM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u7r3qvs0oburl6ndbd2jt8bpb6kev2enek@4ax.com...
eco disaster looming in Alaska
Substantiated by......?
NOTHING!
Liberals are morons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ehollo" |
|
| Title: Re: California burns as GOP Senators fiddle. |
31 Oct 2003 12:26:17 AM |
|
|
Global Warming: In Depth: Index
The Bush Administration's Global Warming Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, the Bush administration at last conceded that global warming
poses a significant and costly threat to the United States, as scientists
have acknowledged for some time. Yet this White House continues to reject
action to reduce global warming pollution. It has refused to require cuts in
heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution, significantly raise fuel economy
requirements, or hold companies accountable for improving their energy
efficiency and using wind, solar and other renewable energy sources. As
these analyses show, the Bush administration's tired calls for still more
study and voluntary pollution cuts won't get the job done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/bushinx.asp
Substantiated by....Bush!
last revised 1.30.03
"Plonk!" <Plonk!@liberalismisstupid.com> wrote in message
news:1gmob.67219$e01.243616@attbi_s02...
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u7r3qvs0oburl6ndbd2jt8bpb6kev2enek@4ax.com...
eco disaster looming in Alaska
Substantiated by......?
NOTHING!
Liberals are morons.
begin 666 transparent.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`(#_`,# P ```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
