Comments on: Lieberman, Warner seek 70% emissions cut by 2050

By: Boli

Boli — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:06:42 +0000

Well the US already has limitted manufacturing industries here at home continue giving major industries reasons to send their products over seas and continue to outsource US jobs. Yea we will be concerned with polluting the environment, while in the mean time China and India get richer cause they don’t care about their air quality. While you are at it make it harder for the power and energy companies to produce their services because these companies can not really outsource. Oh yea but they can certainly hike their prices so they can comply with this new law. I think this sounds like a good plan! Their is a lot of in between the lines in this bill that we do not know about because we have not actually read all of the bill. Is ACORN profitting from this too…HUMMMMMM???? It already seems the “white house” is accomodating everything else in there agenda…what will come next…

By: B2b Business Listing

B2b Business Listing — Sat, 16 May 2009 02:32:50 +0000

I am not much into reading, but somehow I got to read lots of articles on your blog.
Its amazing how interesting it is for me to visit you very often
Please visit my blog when you have time http://puerariamirifica.blog.friendster.com/

By: Mary Frances

Mary Frances — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:42:50 +0000

This is great news. However, in the meantime I still have to breathe in the chemicals that are emitted from the petroleum plant that sits directly across the street from the elementary school where I teach. In recent months we have had to go on lock down because something was released into the air. We were never told what it was. We have a high number of students with asthma. I myself have developed strange rashes and other symptoms like headache, nausea, and lethargy just to name a few. Can you refer me to an agency that can help us correct this situation?

By: D DICKENS

D DICKENS — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:45:47 +0000

I don’t think we should do anything to weaken an already weak American economy. Make sure that other countries such as China and India come to compliance with the rest of the world, if your that concerned about global warming build an ark, oh yea you would have to cut a tree to do that.

By: Jesse Jenkins

Jesse Jenkins — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:13:19 +0000

Indeed, with (by my count) 58% of all emissions given away for free to industry polluters, this proposal still amounts to a major corporate giveaway of a public good – the right to pollute our commonly-owned air and damage our climate.

Some industry giveaways will probably be necessary to get a bill passed, but with only 24% of the allowances auctioned under the Lieberman-Warner proposal, we’re again starting from a position of compromise instead of a position of strength. How much further will we need to degrade this bill to get it through this congress? What kind of giveaways do you think we’ll have to make to get passed Senate Republicans who fought off even a modest renewable portfolio standard proposal and a package of clean energy tax incentives? And how much worse will this bill have to get if we want President Bush to sign it?

Proposals like this are not how we’re going to be build strength and momentum towards the day when we can pass a real climate change solutions package – a day that will surely come after January 2009. Nothing President Bush will sign will be worth having. We ought to keep that in mind…

(Also worth pointing out that this proposal ignores about 20% of U.S. emissions, including emissions from the ag, natural gas and waste disposal sectors, so those emissions reduction targets are even less sufficient than they look)

By: Jesse Jenkins

Jesse Jenkins — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:00:03 +0000

I think you’re being quick to jump on the Lieberman-Warner band-wagon, Joe. It is decent proposal, one with several elements that could work well – the bank/borrow cost control mechanisms are much better than a safety valve provisions, for example – but why sell ourselves short of the kind of emissions reductions we both know we have to achieve if we want a decent chance (just a decent chance, mind you, and no guarantee) that we can avert disastrous climate change and avoid crossing the Tipping Point?

The targets in this bill are still not satisfactory. 70% by 2050 is close to 80% by 2050, but remember that cumulative emissions is what’s important, and the targets proceed downward in a stairstep pattern (not linearly or exponentially like Boxer-Sanders or Waxman). That means cumulative emissions under Lieberman-Warner are even worse when compared to Boxer-Sanders or Waxman than you would guess when comparing just the final 2050 targets. Additionally, the interim targets are also weaker than necessary.

We should be aiming for at least a freeze in emissions growth by 2010, a return to 1990 levels by 2020, a cut of 20-30% below 1990 levels by 2030-2035 on track to an 80% or greater reduction by 2050. Progress between those checkpoints should be steady and we should avoid ’stair-step’ targets.

Anything less is simply unlikely to get the job done, right? And what good is a policy that doesn’t get the job done?!

As David points out, we’re starting from these inadequate proposals. Imagine what targets we’ll get at by the time we’re done trying to pass this thing! Remember what happened to the Bingaman and Udall RPS proposals in the Senate and House…

Let’s call Lieberman-Warner what it is: a thoughtful and helpful step in the right direction, but not the bill we want to see passed.

By: David

David — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:33:49 +0000

70%? that’s the best the US can do?? How come other countires are talking about 80% and we’re setting the lower even before the real deal-making and compromising begins? Is there any one in teh scientific community who thinks 70% is adequate?