Vote on climate bill is blocked in Senate

[Topspin]

Vote on climate bill is blocked in Senate
- Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would substantially raise gasoline and other energy prices.

Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote. The 48-36 vote failed to reach even a majority, a disappointment to the bill's supporters.

Majority Leader Harry Reid was expected to pull the legislation, in all likelihood pushing the congressional debate over climate change to next year with a new Congress and a new president.

The bill would have capped carbon dioxide coming from power plants, refineries and factories, with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century.

"It's a huge tax increase," argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal."

Supporters of the bill accused Republicans of muddying the water with misinformation.

"There is no tax increase," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., one of the bill's chief sponsors said. She said the emissions trading system would provide tax relief to help people pay energy prices. And supporters disputed that it would substantially increase gasoline prices.

Four Democrats joined most Republicans in essentially killing the bill.

Both presidential candidates, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, were absent, although supporters of the bill said they had sent letters advising they would have voted for the bill.

 

[Bonestorm]

Not surprising in the least. The fact of the matter is that both presidential candidates are on record supporting cap and trade programs. Rest assured that cap and trade will be implemented sooner or later.

 

[Cypress]

Politics.

Republicans have to demonstrate to their knuckle dragging base that they will obstruct everything, and that Global warming isn't even caused at all by humans!

 

[Topspin]

and tools like Cypress would be crying to anybody who'd listen when cap and trade adds an immediate $1 to a gallon of gas.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Good. This bill was most certainly going to drive up energy prices. It was an effective tax increase on utility companies who would have had to "buy cap space". That cost would then have been passed on to consumers. The cap and trade system does not work.

Once the idiots in DC pull their heads out of their asses, then perhaps we will see real positive movements.

To skew this off on a tangent....

Went to Colorado State last week to tour their renewable energy labs. One of them has developed a fuel injection system for two-strokes (the little "cabs" that are used in Asia). The two strokes currently put out the pollution of about 30 cars each year. There are an estimated 50-100 million of these in Asia. The 50 million figure is a very conservative esitmate. Think about that. The equivalint pollution of 1.5-3 billion cars.

The conversion kit for the two strokes reduces emissions to the equivalent of 1/4 of that of a car. If we convert them all... we go from 1.5-3 billion car equivalent to 12.5-25 million car equivalent.

The average driver of these vehicles misses 6 days of work each month due to illness. Healthcare costs are soaring in the heavily populated urban areas due to the pollution.

CSU has set up a non-profit to install these. They give no-cost financing to the drivers(who are also the owners).... since they cannot afford the $300 conversion cost of the kit all at once. These kits also increase fuel efficiency of the vehicles by 35%. So the drivers not only reduce pollution, but they save money on gas as well. So they can see an increase in their earnings as well.

This is the type of improvements we need to see to help the global emissions problems.

Domestically, currently with government rebates, the payback for solar installation for most commercial properties is approximately one year. There is little reason to not be putting up solar panels on every commercial property in the US.

Germany is kicking our ass in installation right now, because the vast majority of the US public is unaware of the short term payback. WHY?

Side note... Senator Salazar and his staff here are very involved in pushing these technologies and building a green development zone in CO. Other states (especially Michigan and CA) are also beginning pushes to be the leaders.

Lets stop with the bogus schemes that even the EPA says will have minimal impact and start focusing on long term solutions.

 

[Cypress]

and tools like Cypress would be crying to anybody who'd listen when cap and trade adds an immediate $1 to a gallon of gas.

I put no stock in the analytical and predictive abilities of bush voters and former bush voters. They have plainly demonstrated the utmost incompetence at analyzing a policy or a candidate, and making good choices.

I don't give a shit if some republican press release you took 3 minutes to read told you gas would go up a buck. The fact is, neither you nor I have spent more than two minutes evaluating the merits of this bill. All I know is that republicans have been liars and foot draggers for two decades on global warming, so anything they say can be dismissed out of hand.

As for me, I'm not going to act like a poseur and pretend that I have invested significant amounts of time evaluating the pros and cons of this bill.

 

[Bonestorm]

Good. This bill was most certainly going to drive up energy prices. It was an effective tax increase on utility companies who would have had to "buy cap space". That cost would then have been passed on to consumers. The cap and trade system does not work.

Once the idiots in DC pull their heads out of their asses, then perhaps we will see real positive movements.

To skew this off on a tangent....

Went to Colorado State last week to tour their renewable energy labs. One of them has developed a fuel injection system for two-strokes (the little "cabs" that are used in Asia). The two strokes currently put out the pollution of about 30 cars each year. There are an estimated 50-100 million of these in Asia. The 50 million figure is a very conservative esitmate. Think about that. The equivalint pollution of 1.5-3 billion cars.

The conversion kit for the two strokes reduces emissions to the equivalent of 1/4 of that of a car. If we convert them all... we go from 1.5-3 billion car equivalent to 12.5-25 million car equivalent.

The average driver of these vehicles misses 6 days of work each month due to illness. Healthcare costs are soaring in the heavily populated urban areas due to the pollution.

CSU has set up a non-profit to install these. They give no-cost financing to the drivers(who are also the owners).... since they cannot afford the $300 conversion cost of the kit all at once. These kits also increase fuel efficiency of the vehicles by 35%. So the drivers not only reduce pollution, but they save money on gas as well. So they can see an increase in their earnings as well.

This is the type of improvements we need to see to help the global emissions problems.

Domestically, currently with government rebates, the payback for solar installation for most commercial properties is approximately one year. There is little reason to not be putting up solar panels on every commercial property in the US.

Germany is kicking our ass in installation right now, because the vast majority of the US public is unaware of the short term payback. WHY?

Side note... Senator Salazar and his staff here are very involved in pushing these technologies and building a green development zone in CO. Other states (especially Michigan and CA) are also beginning pushes to be the leaders.

Lets stop with the bogus schemes that even the EPA says will have minimal impact and start focusing on long term solutions.

Superfreak - You're full of shit. Cap and trade works. Read up on the cap and trade scheme developed in the United States in the 1990s relating to sulfur emissions.

And please provide some support for the idea that the EPA says cap and trade will have minimal impact and let me know if it is the EPA scientists or administrators.

 

[Topspin]

cypresstool, you haven't spent time analysing how democrats caused oil to go from 30 to 130 either have you.

 

[Bonestorm]

cypresstool, you haven't spent time analysing how democrats caused oil to go from 30 to 130 either have you.

Please, enlighten us.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Superfreak - You're full of shit. Cap and trade works. Read up on the cap and trade scheme developed in the United States in the 1990s relating to sulfur emissions.

And please provide some support for the idea that the EPA says cap and trade will have minimal impact and let me know if it is the EPA scientists or administrators.

Cap and trade is a shell game. It benefits the companies that can sell the "cap space" and hurts those that have to buy "cap space". In this case it hurts the energy companies and guess who they will pass the increase on to?

As for the EPA comment. It was in a report that Desh posted on here. I will try to find the thread tonight and post it on here. So if you can grant a bit of patience, I will provide it.

Thanks.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

cypresstool, you haven't spent time analysing how democrats caused oil to go from 30 to 130 either have you.

What?????

While I agree they have blocked domestic production, to say they are responsible for the increase is an extreme exagerration.

 

[Topspin]

your right, largely responsible
By far the biggest reason for the increase in price is increased demand by us in the 90's and China/India in the 2,000's.
Decreasing supplies by billions of barrells in not a drop in the bucket no matter what any turbo-lib says.

 

[Bonestorm]

Cap and trade is a shell game. It benefits the companies that can sell the "cap space" and hurts those that have to buy "cap space". In this case it hurts the energy companies and guess who they will pass the increase on to?

As for the EPA comment. It was in a report that Desh posted on here. I will try to find the thread tonight and post it on here. So if you can grant a bit of patience, I will provide it.

Thanks.

I'll wait. However, if it is the CBO (I think) report about how cap and trade is less effective than a straight tax don't bother. I realize that is true, but a straight tax on emissions is a non-starter. Cap and trade is the only politically palatable solution.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'll wait. However, if it is the CBO (I think) report about how cap and trade is less effective than a straight tax don't bother. I realize that is true, but a straight tax on emissions is a non-starter. Cap and trade is the only politically palatable solution.

I don't recall if it was the CBO report. I am trying to find the thread Desh put it in, but I don't recall which one it was.... and Desh has started quite a few threads.

But the sentence was something like "The EPA has said the cap and trade would have a 1.4% reduction in emissions" or something similar to that.... again, that is from memory, I will try to find the actual comment.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'll wait. However, if it is the CBO (I think) report about how cap and trade is less effective than a straight tax don't bother. I realize that is true, but a straight tax on emissions is a non-starter. Cap and trade is the only politically palatable solution.

side note...

what are your thoughts on this part of the post?

"To skew this off on a tangent....

Went to Colorado State last week to tour their renewable energy labs. One of them has developed a fuel injection system for two-strokes (the little "cabs" that are used in Asia). The two strokes currently put out the pollution of about 30 cars each year. There are an estimated 50-100 million of these in Asia. The 50 million figure is a very conservative esitmate. Think about that. The equivalint pollution of 1.5-3 billion cars.

The conversion kit for the two strokes reduces emissions to the equivalent of 1/4 of that of a car. If we convert them all... we go from 1.5-3 billion car equivalent to 12.5-25 million car equivalent.

The average driver of these vehicles misses 6 days of work each month due to illness. Healthcare costs are soaring in the heavily populated urban areas due to the pollution.

CSU has set up a non-profit to install these. They give no-cost financing to the drivers(who are also the owners).... since they cannot afford the $300 conversion cost of the kit all at once. These kits also increase fuel efficiency of the vehicles by 35%. So the drivers not only reduce pollution, but they save money on gas as well. So they can see an increase in their earnings as well.

This is the type of improvements we need to see to help the global emissions problems.

Domestically, currently with government rebates, the payback for solar installation for most commercial properties is approximately one year. There is little reason to not be putting up solar panels on every commercial property in the US.

Germany is kicking our ass in installation right now, because the vast majority of the US public is unaware of the short term payback. WHY?

Side note... Senator Salazar and his staff here are very involved in pushing these technologies and building a green development zone in CO. Other states (especially Michigan and CA) are also beginning pushes to be the leaders. "

 

[Bonestorm]

side note...

what are your thoughts on this part of the post?

"To skew this off on a tangent....

Went to Colorado State last week to tour their renewable energy labs. One of them has developed a fuel injection system for two-strokes (the little "cabs" that are used in Asia). The two strokes currently put out the pollution of about 30 cars each year. There are an estimated 50-100 million of these in Asia. The 50 million figure is a very conservative esitmate. Think about that. The equivalint pollution of 1.5-3 billion cars.

The conversion kit for the two strokes reduces emissions to the equivalent of 1/4 of that of a car. If we convert them all... we go from 1.5-3 billion car equivalent to 12.5-25 million car equivalent.

The average driver of these vehicles misses 6 days of work each month due to illness. Healthcare costs are soaring in the heavily populated urban areas due to the pollution.

CSU has set up a non-profit to install these. They give no-cost financing to the drivers(who are also the owners).... since they cannot afford the $300 conversion cost of the kit all at once. These kits also increase fuel efficiency of the vehicles by 35%. So the drivers not only reduce pollution, but they save money on gas as well. So they can see an increase in their earnings as well.

This is the type of improvements we need to see to help the global emissions problems.

Domestically, currently with government rebates, the payback for solar installation for most commercial properties is approximately one year. There is little reason to not be putting up solar panels on every commercial property in the US.

Germany is kicking our ass in installation right now, because the vast majority of the US public is unaware of the short term payback. WHY?

Side note... Senator Salazar and his staff here are very involved in pushing these technologies and building a green development zone in CO. Other states (especially Michigan and CA) are also beginning pushes to be the leaders. "

Sounds good to me, but aren't you just pushing a wealth distribution scheme. Who is going to pay for the conversion kits!?!

In any event, unless you price the cost of fossil fuel emissions (negative externalities) into the price of fossil fuel use (which is the goal of a emissions/carbon tax or cap and trade) alternative energies are at a competitive disadvantage that cannot be overcome with out heavy government subsidies.

 

[Topspin]

Give huge tax credits to the homeowners like Bush did with Hybrids. Maybe you'll get people on a waiting list for solar panels.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Sounds good to me, but aren't you just pushing a wealth distribution scheme. Who is going to pay for the conversion kits!?!

In any event, unless you price the cost of fossil fuel emissions (negative externalities) into the price of fossil fuel use (which is the goal of a emissions/carbon tax or cap and trade) alternative energies are at a competitive disadvantage that cannot be overcome with out heavy government subsidies.

as stated, the drivers themselves pay for the kit via a weekly payment plan. Because CSU set it up as a non-profit, the drivers will not be paying interest. Their net take home pay will increase due to fuel efficiency, even after making their weekly payment. Not to mention that eventually they should see less sick days per month once the air cleans up... but that is way down the road...pardon the pun.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Sounds good to me, but aren't you just pushing a wealth distribution scheme. Who is going to pay for the conversion kits!?!

In any event, unless you price the cost of fossil fuel emissions (negative externalities) into the price of fossil fuel use (which is the goal of a emissions/carbon tax or cap and trade) alternative energies are at a competitive disadvantage that cannot be overcome with out heavy government subsidies.

CSU is close to being able to produce thin film solar cells at a cost equivalent to the cost to use coal. If they do indeed accomplish that, then they will not need subsidies. Right now they do.