And that means you can watch it online here.
Full Environment and Public Works Committee hearing entitled, “Moving America toward a Clean Energy Economy and Reducing Global Warming Pollution: Legislative Tools.” Details here.
“The Web's most influential climate-change blogger” — Time Magazine A Project of Center for American Progress Action Fund
And that means you can watch it online here.
Full Environment and Public Works Committee hearing entitled, “Moving America toward a Clean Energy Economy and Reducing Global Warming Pollution: Legislative Tools.” Details here.
Print
This entry was posted by Joe on Tuesday, July 7th, 2009 at 8:00 am and is filed under Climate Progress. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
RSS —
24878
Readers
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
"The indispensable blog" — Tom Friedman, New York Times
U.S. News & World Report call Joe Romm "one of the most influential energy and environmental policymakers in the Obama era"
"I trust Joe Romm on climate" — Paul Krugman, New York Times
Rolling Stone: "America's fiercest climate-change activist-blogger lets it rip"
About Climate Progress | Terms of Use | Re-use policy | Privacy Policy (off-site)
© 2009 CAP Action | 1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor | Washington, DC 20005
Republicans say yes to silly billboards in the committee room
I saw Barbour today during the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works complaining, among other things, that the ACES bill is too weak! Watching Inhofe and Barbour there was like watching Al Capone and Frank Nitti crime control and prevention. Here’s the actual translation. The bill is so weak thanks to successful efforts of my corporate benefactors who paid my salary and I actively lobbied for that I cannot support this bill.
When Senator Inhofe started questioning Barbour it was like a regular Kukla Fran and Olie show complete with staged testimony, cues and the ever popular nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
There is one thing he mentioned though that I have to question. During Inhofe’s questioning the subject of unemployment benefits came up. Barbour made the statement that there was 3 Billion or 300 million, I don’t remember the correct number, of unemployment benefits in the W-M bill. Barbour stated that he thought this was disconcerting in a bill the he termed, “…was supposed to be a jobs bill.” So what’s the real truth there on this unemployment insurance?