Time to hammer on your senators while their back home this summer ...
The Senate pushed back consideration of a sweeping climate change bill until after the August recess in Congress.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) announced that she'd pushed back her self-imposed deadline to pass cap-and-trade legislation that squeaked through the House in late June.
Boxer said senators would take up the legislation "as soon as we get back" from the August recess, according to Reuters. She said she's "not a bit" worried the Senate will be able to complete and vote on a bill this year, however.
Boxer also acknowledged that the intense focus in the Senate on healthcare has detracted from her ability to craft a climate change bill to complement the House bill.
"A lot of our colleagues are on the health committee," she said. "It's been difficult."
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking Republican on the committee and a noted global warming skeptic, suggested that it was political opposition, not timing, that spurred the delay.
"There is no question that the American public flatly rejected the House ramming through legislation that would have devastating impacts on American consumers," Inhofe said in a statement. "So with this delay, the public should expect more arm-twisting and backroom deals or, in other words, more business as usual in Washington."
yep, I'll "hammer" them to pass something that will get us on the right track. "Drill Baby Drill" ain't gonna do it, and we knew that in the late 70's.
Most people aren't in a position to be as generous with their money as you are ...
Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible than it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. But 41% disagree and say developing cleaner, greener energy sources is the priority.
Sixty-three percent (63%) rate creating jobs as more important than taking steps to stop global warming. For 22%, stopping global warming is more important.
Most people aren't in a position to be as generous with their money as you are ...
****************************
I'm willing to pay it so that my children and grandchildren do not. We are only engaging in denial if we think that we can "drill" our way out of this situation.
Anybody who can look beyond the next 5 years can see it. Unless, of course, you think the supply of crude oil is infinite.
Too late ... your children and grandchilren are going to be paying the debts of this generation for a long, long time. If we don't get off the spending train soon, your great-great grandchildren will be too.
"Drill Baby Drill" ain't gonna do it, and we knew that in the late 70's.
Nonsense. We had the same style chicken-littles in the 70s, and if you haven't noticed, that was quite sometime ago now. I had a Geology prof in college, who without any reservations, proclaimed that we would be "out of oil" by the year 2000.
All you are doing is perpetrating a con, an attempt to apply the Attwater Axiom to a social issue for the singular purpose of advancing your own agenda. Proclaiming it as gospel didn't make it true in the 70s, any more than it does now. What may ultimately save us is the "cry wolf" effect of you nabobs and your endless drum-banging predictions of non-calamities. The culture is *finally* beginning to look around, and realize that their most pressing problems for the foreseeable future are *not* melted glaciers, and "the end of the oil age". With any luck, and a large degree of probability on my side, the "age of oil" will out live our generation, and the din of green bullshit we(you) have inflicted on the culture will go with us. No doubt future generations will appreciate the new peace and quiet.
All you are doing is perpetrating a con, an attempt to apply the Attwater Axiom to a social issue for the singular purpose of advancing your own agenda. Proclaiming it as gospel didn't make it true in the 70s, any more than it does now. What may ultimately save us is the "cry wolf" effect of you nabobs and your endless drum-banging predictions of non-calamities. The culture is *finally* beginning to look around, and realize that their most pressing problems for the foreseeable future are *not* melted glaciers, and "the end of the oil age". With any luck, and a large degree of probability on my side, the "age of oil" will out live our generation, and the din of green bullshit we(you) have inflicted on the culture will go with us. No doubt future generations will appreciate the new peace and quiet.
***************************
So, I guess after all that verbosity, you are saying that "drilling" will get us out of the mess we're in?
So, I guess after all that verbosity, you are saying that "drilling" will get us out of the mess we're in?
Your question is both presumptive, and premature. I fear that we are likely as far apart on defining the "mess", as we are at agreeing on any solution.
My question might be presumptive, it is hardly premature.
Sure it is, because it is agenda-driven, instead of allowing a reasonable amount of room for legitimate speculation. Saying that there is no such room would only prove my point.
Sure it is, because it is agenda-driven, instead of allowing a reasonable amount of room for legitimate speculation. Saying that there is no such room would only prove my point.
********************
As if your "point of view" wasn't "agenda driven" ..
Sure it is, because it is agenda-driven, instead of allowing a reasonable amount of room for legitimate speculation. Saying that there is no such room would only prove my point.
********************
As if your "point of view" wasn't "agenda driven" ..
No, it's logic driven, a rather boundless freedom compared to the shackles of an agenda. You should try it...
What "room" do you offer anyway?
Neither you, nor I, nor Al Gore, or any of your "scientists"(*snort*), have even a reasonable guess as to "the end of oil". The several legitimate lines on the graph can simply not be logically extended to the point of any presumed intersection.
