<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Breaking:  Sen. Boxer makes clear U.S. won&#8217;t pass a climate bill this year</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:40:13 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Russ</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-86831</link>
		<dc:creator>Russ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-86831</guid>
		<description>Yesterday Australia bailed out of co2 abatement. Mexico, Canada,China, India and Russia are all rejecting the premise. So what&#039;s the point of this? All the science is going the other way and the result will be the de-industrializing of America. The co2 will simply go overseas. Hopefully the Senate will show more common sense than the Congress, which just opted for massive control and taxation of private industry and consumers. Everyone with the stench of this mess on them should be thrown from office.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday Australia bailed out of co2 abatement. Mexico, Canada,China, India and Russia are all rejecting the premise. So what&#8217;s the point of this? All the science is going the other way and the result will be the de-industrializing of America. The co2 will simply go overseas. Hopefully the Senate will show more common sense than the Congress, which just opted for massive control and taxation of private industry and consumers. Everyone with the stench of this mess on them should be thrown from office.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jon eden</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29133</link>
		<dc:creator>jon eden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29133</guid>
		<description>Thanks Brian. Until we can correct that error, it is going to be hard for us to move toward a sustainable society.

It sounds like that if we get any bill now, it is going to be cap and trade. That said, I find it hopeful that we will not get a bill this year--in this case a bad bill is worse than no bill. 

Let us hope that the passage of time will give Boxer and others time to unwrap their minds around cap and trade so that there will be the possibility of their embracing the eminently more nimble and sensible carbon &quot;tax&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Brian. Until we can correct that error, it is going to be hard for us to move toward a sustainable society.</p>
<p>It sounds like that if we get any bill now, it is going to be cap and trade. That said, I find it hopeful that we will not get a bill this year&#8211;in this case a bad bill is worse than no bill. </p>
<p>Let us hope that the passage of time will give Boxer and others time to unwrap their minds around cap and trade so that there will be the possibility of their embracing the eminently more nimble and sensible carbon &#8220;tax&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Pauli</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29063</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Pauli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29063</guid>
		<description>thanx Anne... yours is a great site  http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/

One question on the  Principles for Global Warming Legislation

&quot;1.  Reduce emissions to levels guided by science to avoid dangerous global warming. &quot;

This is so broad, simple and all that we need.   But to me that suggests halting all carbon fuels now.  This kind of statement of principles is necessary... but what does that mean the first step should be?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanx Anne&#8230; yours is a great site  <a href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/</a></p>
<p>One question on the  Principles for Global Warming Legislation</p>
<p>&#8220;1.  Reduce emissions to levels guided by science to avoid dangerous global warming. &#8221;</p>
<p>This is so broad, simple and all that we need.   But to me that suggests halting all carbon fuels now.  This kind of statement of principles is necessary&#8230; but what does that mean the first step should be?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Papertiger</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29045</link>
		<dc:creator>Papertiger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:36:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29045</guid>
		<description>We&#039;ll own you at the mid term. 

That&#039;s why all this talk of urgency and &quot;keep pressure on and make this happen quickly&quot;.

Reality is catching up with you. Soon.

If Bab&#039;s is still barking the climate change next year, she won&#039;t be a Senator much longer.

[&lt;em&gt;JR:  Meds, people, meds!&lt;/em&gt;]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ll own you at the mid term. </p>
<p>That&#8217;s why all this talk of urgency and &#8220;keep pressure on and make this happen quickly&#8221;.</p>
<p>Reality is catching up with you. Soon.</p>
<p>If Bab&#8217;s is still barking the climate change next year, she won&#8217;t be a Senator much longer.</p>
<p>[<em>JR:  Meds, people, meds!</em>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian M</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29043</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29043</guid>
		<description>&quot;... - Keep consumers whole as our nation transitions to clean energy;...&quot;

Maybe it&#039;s just me, but I never get a good feeling when our elected officials refer to us as consumers as opposed to citizens.  Keeping consumers &quot;whole&quot; implies the desire to arrive back at a happy mall-hopping future.  Good luck with that!  Instead of supporting consumers and their (our) debt-inflated standard of living, maybe we should be trying to protect and improve the quality of life of the citizens of a) our country, and b) our planet.  Just a thought.

Brian</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230; &#8211; Keep consumers whole as our nation transitions to clean energy;&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Maybe it&#8217;s just me, but I never get a good feeling when our elected officials refer to us as consumers as opposed to citizens.  Keeping consumers &#8220;whole&#8221; implies the desire to arrive back at a happy mall-hopping future.  Good luck with that!  Instead of supporting consumers and their (our) debt-inflated standard of living, maybe we should be trying to protect and improve the quality of life of the citizens of a) our country, and b) our planet.  Just a thought.</p>
<p>Brian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29040</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:28:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29040</guid>
		<description>There is much we can do absent a cap-and-trade bill, legislatively.  The climate change science program is in great need of renovation and redirection, and needs stronger oversight (e,g. EWP can oversee the EPA science programs.)  EPW also needs to work in concert with the Commerce Committee on the climate science programs to ensure the agencies are truly working together, to address ways to help communities get the information they need to identify and implement effective adaptation and mitigation measures.   Climate Science Watch suggested two additional &quot;Principles&quot; -- 

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/principles_for_global_warming_legislation_our_views/

And remember, even after a cap-and-trade law is passed, it will take months, perhaps years, to draft all the regulations and get a program up and running.  And utilities and other emitters may slow the process further by filing suits.  We need to take additional actions sooner than that to reduce emissions and deal with impacts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is much we can do absent a cap-and-trade bill, legislatively.  The climate change science program is in great need of renovation and redirection, and needs stronger oversight (e,g. EWP can oversee the EPA science programs.)  EPW also needs to work in concert with the Commerce Committee on the climate science programs to ensure the agencies are truly working together, to address ways to help communities get the information they need to identify and implement effective adaptation and mitigation measures.   Climate Science Watch suggested two additional &#8220;Principles&#8221; &#8212; </p>
<p><a href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/principles_for_global_warming_legislation_our_views/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>index.php/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>csw/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>details/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>principles_for_global_warming_legislation_our_views/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span></a></p>
<p>And remember, even after a cap-and-trade law is passed, it will take months, perhaps years, to draft all the regulations and get a program up and running.  And utilities and other emitters may slow the process further by filing suits.  We need to take additional actions sooner than that to reduce emissions and deal with impacts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Pauli</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29039</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Pauli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29039</guid>
		<description>Jeekers, do nothing for a year!?!?!  Fiddling while Rome burns. 
Language to &quot;Set goals&quot; is far too weak.  

How&#039;s this for some specifics:

0.  Setup serious science programs that measures change, researches and reports regularly.  Block any bill that cannot pass scientific approval.   Every politician should know science facts, and should know the harm that delay causes.  

1.  Halt all new coal plants immediately.   Halt all new coal mines.
   See Hansen&#039;s release today http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090203_CoalRiverMountain.pdf  
  
2.  Tax all hydrocarbon energy energy immediately while you haggle about carbon markets.      Progressively increase the tax - rising each year while you fix the poorly designed, carbon markets run by corrupt banks and financial institutions.   Give full tax relief on any carbon fuels that are used to manufacture or install clean energy systems or grids.   Structure new taxes to encourage clean energy while you perfect carbon markets. 

3.  Extra tax on coal tailings and soot and emissions.  If you can make clean coal work then no taxes... so go for it.   Otherwise, super tax.   
     
4.   Shut down the PR wing of the carbon fuel companies... they are bothersome like tobacco advertising. Their goal is delay, they are obstructing change.  The ONLY valid use for carbon fuel is to build electric cars, wind, solar, insulation and power grids.   Nationalize the energy companies if you must.

5.  Do whatever it takes to lower CO2 levels.. and start now.  

Even I want to put some of these suggestions aside while holding out for a healthy economy and improving climate.   But we are Waiting for Godot here.  

Government can act now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeekers, do nothing for a year!?!?!  Fiddling while Rome burns.<br />
Language to &#8220;Set goals&#8221; is far too weak.  </p>
<p>How&#8217;s this for some specifics:</p>
<p>0.  Setup serious science programs that measures change, researches and reports regularly.  Block any bill that cannot pass scientific approval.   Every politician should know science facts, and should know the harm that delay causes.  </p>
<p>1.  Halt all new coal plants immediately.   Halt all new coal mines.<br />
   See Hansen&#8217;s release today <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090203_CoalRiverMountain.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>~jeh1/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>mailings/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>2009/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>20090203_CoalRiverMountain.pdf</a>  </p>
<p>2.  Tax all hydrocarbon energy energy immediately while you haggle about carbon markets.      Progressively increase the tax &#8211; rising each year while you fix the poorly designed, carbon markets run by corrupt banks and financial institutions.   Give full tax relief on any carbon fuels that are used to manufacture or install clean energy systems or grids.   Structure new taxes to encourage clean energy while you perfect carbon markets. </p>
<p>3.  Extra tax on coal tailings and soot and emissions.  If you can make clean coal work then no taxes&#8230; so go for it.   Otherwise, super tax.   </p>
<p>4.   Shut down the PR wing of the carbon fuel companies&#8230; they are bothersome like tobacco advertising. Their goal is delay, they are obstructing change.  The ONLY valid use for carbon fuel is to build electric cars, wind, solar, insulation and power grids.   Nationalize the energy companies if you must.</p>
<p>5.  Do whatever it takes to lower CO2 levels.. and start now.  </p>
<p>Even I want to put some of these suggestions aside while holding out for a healthy economy and improving climate.   But we are Waiting for Godot here.  </p>
<p>Government can act now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Pauli</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29033</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Pauli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:43:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29033</guid>
		<description>Atmospheric CO2 is now 385.54    according to http://co2now.org/
It looks like levels increase about 2 ppm per year.

Care to predict what the CO2 level will be a year from now or when a bill is passed and signed?

Data trends suggests it will be  387.9</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Atmospheric CO2 is now 385.54    according to <a href="http://co2now.org/" rel="nofollow">http://co2now.org/</a><br />
It looks like levels increase about 2 ppm per year.</p>
<p>Care to predict what the CO2 level will be a year from now or when a bill is passed and signed?</p>
<p>Data trends suggests it will be  387.9</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Leonard</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29030</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Leonard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29030</guid>
		<description>So, I&#039;ll admit there is a lack of urgency from even champs like Boxer - but I was also reading a Reuters article &quot;Climate bill possible &quot;in weeks&quot;: Sen. Boxer&quot;

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51267620090203

By all means, we need to do everything we can to keep pressure on and make this happen quickly, but it does sound like she is pushing for something quickly. Now, how meaningful and effective will that something be? That&#039;s the real question...

And you are right - there is much action to be taken without waiting for a comprehensive bill to come forward.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, I&#8217;ll admit there is a lack of urgency from even champs like Boxer &#8211; but I was also reading a Reuters article &#8220;Climate bill possible &#8220;in weeks&#8221;: Sen. Boxer&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51267620090203" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>article/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>environmentNews/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>idUSTRE51267620090203</a></p>
<p>By all means, we need to do everything we can to keep pressure on and make this happen quickly, but it does sound like she is pushing for something quickly. Now, how meaningful and effective will that something be? That&#8217;s the real question&#8230;</p>
<p>And you are right &#8211; there is much action to be taken without waiting for a comprehensive bill to come forward.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Creative Greenius</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29018</link>
		<dc:creator>Creative Greenius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/03/sen-barbara-boxer-global-warming-legislation-principles/#comment-29018</guid>
		<description>Good thing we&#039;ve got plenty of time with all this and there&#039;s no sense of urgency.  This year, next year, what&#039;s the difference?

Luckily we&#039;ve got the legislative brain trust of North Dakota on the case, so we&#039;ve got nothing to worry about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good thing we&#8217;ve got plenty of time with all this and there&#8217;s no sense of urgency.  This year, next year, what&#8217;s the difference?</p>
<p>Luckily we&#8217;ve got the legislative brain trust of North Dakota on the case, so we&#8217;ve got nothing to worry about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
