I was just musing over this, wondering if maybe Jacksons death might not have some small push in the environmental movement. Probably most of the shock of that event, in seeing the biggest legend of our time pass on, is realizing our own humanity and the fragility of life. Which might magnify perception of the threat of ‘hell and high water’.

If a man with more money than *insert your favorite imaginary super-hero in the sky’s name here* can die, then maybe no matter how much money you make raping planet it wont protect you.

i dunno its pretty flimsy…

“Washington, D.C.—The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (aka Waxman-Markey), could save approximately $1,050 per household by 2020 and $4,400 per household by 2030, according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Changes to ACEEE’s analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of provisions, as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule’s Committee version of the bill released yesterday.”

http://www.aceee.org/press/0906waxman2.htm

The CBO projection of $175 per household per year by 2020 cannot be stressed enough. And since most people don’t automatically convert per household to per capita figures, why not do the work for them? Assuming 2.6 people per household (an estimate I found here), that’s $67 per person per year, or about $5 per month.

$5 per month gets you improved public transportation, lower electricity bills, millions of net jobs, a position as a global leader in the clean energy industry (which will clearly be one of the most important markets of this century), and protection from the volatility of fossil fuel prices.

for more on this: climatesecurity.blogspot.com

http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/hes_barack_obama

This is the stuff of Sci-Fi comic books! And truly, you are a Super-Heros.

This is true. But as I understand the European version of cap-and-trade, it started off dysfunctional and then was repaired.

“A person could have lost a lot of money over the last five decades betting on humans to function as rational economic agents and act in their own self-interest … that’s why I value stringent caps without easy offsets and a preservation of CAA authorities to regulate Carbon.”

As Joe pointed out, the problem with administration edicts (regulations) is that they can be repealed by the next administration. In the case of CAA restrictions on CO2 emissions, I think it’s a safe bet that the next Republican administration would repeal them, or otherwise make them ineffective.