Details of New Senate Climate Bill Emerge

lieberman-180By Reuters

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) are scheduled to formally unveil on Wednesday a compromise U.S. climate change bill they want passed this year.

Besides bringing down emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming, it would expand offshore oil drilling and nuclear-power production in a move to appeal to a broader number of senators.

Here are highlights of the bill, called the “American Power Act,” according to a summary of the legislation being circulated to senators and obtained by Reuters:

Carbon emissions reductions
By 2020, carbon pollution would be cut by 17 percent from 2005 levels. By 2050, a reduction of more than 80 percent would be achieved. These are the same goals included in the climate bill passed by the House of Representatives in June. The short-term goal is slightly less than the 20 percent cut approved in November by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The summary did not specify, but sources have said the carbon-reduction requirements on utilities would begin in 2013.

Carbon price collar
Carbon prices would rise at a fixed rate over inflation. Initially, floor and ceiling prices for carbon pollution permits required of electric utilities would be set at $12-$25. The floor would increase at 3 percent annually over inflation and the ceiling at 5 percent annually over inflation.

In the event of unusually high carbon prices, a strategic reserve would ensure the availability of “price-certain allowances.”

Backers aren’t calling it “cap and trade,” but in practice, that is what it appears to be.

Read the rest of this story at Cnet.

Related Reading: Section by Section Analysis of the American Power Act

  • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

    In the meantime……………
    http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
    “Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earth’s current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sun’s historic reduction in output, the on-going “solar hibernation.” In follow-up to the specific global temperature forecast posted in SSRC Press Release 4-2009, the SSRC advises that in order to return to the long term decline slope from the current El Nino induced high temperatures, a significant global cold weather re-direction must occur. According to SSRC Director John Casey, “The Earth typically makes adjustments in major temperature spikes within two to three years. In this case as we cool down from El Nino, we are dealing with the combined effects of this planetary thermodynamic normalization and the influence of the more powerful underlying global temperature downturn brought on by the solar hibernation.”

    • Rob N. Hood

      So if this is the case- why worry so much? The truth will out, and even if we started Cap n Trade tomorrow, I doubt that anyone could prove over actual global temperatures that Cap n Trade was what lowered temps.

      • Dan

        You hit the nail on the head, even if you weren’t quite aiming for it. They don’t have to prove it – only say it. Once cap and trade is in place, it will probably be a generation before it’s undone – if ever.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

        Wow Rob! That’s true! I guess I shouldn’t worry then. I’ll just call the Republican elitists and ask them to cover my increased energy costs. No problem!
        Oh, and “the truth” has been out for a while now. As in global temps are not rising. Who has been saying that for years now? Oh yeah, ME!!!!!!

        • Rob N. Hood

          So, Neil, you basically ignored my premise, and conjured up more of your patented hysterics. Good job. Dan is probably correct, but, then again, nothing lasts forever. That’s another bit of hyperbole that the Right loves to implant subliminally almost in receptive brains.

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

            Rob, you only make sense to yourself. I don’t know why I bother.

  • Hal Groar

    This bill is another form of income redistribution. Notice how people will get an allowance to offset the hike in energy prices and LOW INCOME people get a larger allowance. Why would that be? Do low income people use more fuel? I think the higher income people would have more “toys” therefore they would be hit harder by the increase. This bill is a sham! Forget it! And as Neil states, the earth is growing colder anyway. Vote these people out!

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

      Hal, it truly is amazing how this keeps going, and going. They know it’s false. They know the world is not getting warmer. They know CO2 is not causing the warming that’s not happening. All they can see is the butloads, and butloads of money they can make trading carbon credits, truth be dammed.
      I agree totally, vote the bums out. But how do we know that the people we replace them with won’t become sucked into the darkness by oodles, and oodles of potential payoffs from the same kind of scam(s)? I like term limits.

    • Rob N. Hood

      Those darn low-incomers! They got it made I tells ya ! If it wasn’t for them… blah blah blah…

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

        That comment is incomprehensible. I have no idea what you mean by “low-incomers”. Who are you talking about?

        • Rob N. Hood

          … what are you talking about Neil? So I need to write it down in CORRECT grammer? Ok- “people with Low Incomes”… ala hal G. above. What is it about this simple concept you don’t get?

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

            No need to be snotty.

  • paul wenum

    There’s always November my friends. Vote where it counts, “In the belly of the beast” Vote them out I say. No vote, don’t complain.

  • Sorry for the “out of thema” but this is what happened everyday in the lovely Sweeden of Rob, and it will come soon in America if you don’t do something about it.
    It is not only a matter of November elections and it is worse that Global Warming scam

    http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/muhammad-cartoonist-lars-vilks-attacked-during-college-lecture/19473427?sms_ss=email

  • Rob N. Hood

    oooohhhh, scary!

  • paul wenum

    Dan, I agree with your comment 100%. Easily done, hard to undue. A possible generation?

  • Neil as soon Rob saw you detected his BS blah, blah, blah, he turns against my post, my God, such a “beeeeep” intelect!!!!!

  • Rob N. Hood

    beep beep to you too

  • Rob N. Hood

    Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis: Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman’s presidency. Which is to say — tax collection is at its lowest level since 1950.

    All income taxes, and property, sales and other taxes combined equaled 9.2 percent of all personal income in 2009. The historic rate for the last half century is 12 percent. All told, taxes paid for 2009 dropped 23%, contributing to the federal debt growing to $8.4 trillion dollars.

    Is the cause tax cuts, income declines or the continuing havens offered high income earners? A bit of all three. But one thing’s crystal clear: Reality to Tea Party people: high taxes are the very last thing we should be screaming about.

  • Yeah, Neil I acknowledge that idea. The article presents how nature works, but the reality of climate change is still possible. I also appreciate the effort of Copenhagen summit representatives for making efforts in taking care of out planet. This is ours to live. Everyone should be concerned about it.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

      “The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political organization promoting a theory that recent minor temperature increases may be caused largely by man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. CO2 is an infrared gas, and increasing concentrations can potentially increase the average global temperature as the gas absorbs radiation from the Earth and emits the absorbed energy at longer wavelengths. However, the warming ability of CO2 is limited because much of the absorption spectrum is near or fully saturated. When CO2 concentrations were ten times greater than today the Earth was in the grips of one of the coldest ice ages.”
      http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Lead
      Sorry Mark @ Israel, I think you are sitting on the fence trying to be reasonable. You need to decide which side you want to come down.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

      No one here is denying that there is climate change as we all know the climate has been changing since the formation of the Earth. It has changed, is changing, and will change again. What is in dispute is the theory that human produced CO2 is causing the climate of the world to warm. A theory that is not supported by any facts, or recorded climate observation. The only evidence that CO2 is causing rapid warming exists in computer climate models that are held up as proof by the UN’s IPCC, and it has been covered here many times that the climate system of the planet Earth is very complex with too many unknown variables that it is impossible to predict future climate change with any degree of certainty by modeling it in a computer.

  • paul wenum

    No. Nobody is working thus no taxes paid. You don’t pay taxes if you don’t work. With a 17% unemployment, excuse me 9.9%, the tax revenues are the worst in history. Get real. You are boring me with you dribble.

  • Rob N. Hood

    That’s DRIVEL, and it’s coming from you. Course, you may be dribbling too for all I know.

  • Rob N. Hood

    The harsh Soviet approach failed to meet basic consumer needs, but our laissez-faire capitalism was too susceptible to the boom-and-bust cycles that brought on the Great Depression. President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal had charted a middle course that let capitalists make money producing and selling products while the government constrained capitalism’s worst excesses.

    In the 1950s and 1960s, President Dwight Eisenhower’s Interstate highway system and John Kennedy’s space program also showed how smart government programs could help create an infrastructure to spur economic growth. Tax rates on the wealthy were relatively high in those days, but an expanding middle class was generating an unprecedented national prosperity.

    But since Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and many other wedge issues later, the extreme Right-wing of Conservatism has completely taken over the US Government, and the hearts and minds of perhaps most Americans as well. Thus more boom and bust capitalism and bailouts for the largest Corporations.

  • paul wenum

    I quess you may as well blame Lincoln? You blame everyone but the party “In charge.!”

  • Rob N. Hood

    I blame both parties because both parties are in charge we have only one- the corporate party. I’ve repeated that point ad nauseum.

    So you give Bush a complete pass, just because he isn’t currently in “charge”?!? We are currently dealing with HIS mess. Place blame where appropriate or don’t place blame at all.

    Your ability to problem solve leaves a lot to be desired.

    • Dan

      You’re right about the corporate party. There are lots of bad Republicans. The conservative grassroots has reached a boiling point, though and have been taking the party back. The bad guys are getting ousted – quickly. Grassroots candidates are being propelled to the top. Leadership positions are being overturned. The Republican party is poised to be a new populist movement. Meanwhile, Democrats are still fighting their way further left into loonyville and trying to compete for special interest constituencies. The results should be resounding in November.

  • paul wenum

    Nobody is innocent. Trust me. Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2 and now “The Savior.”

  • Rob N. Hood

    Actually it’s the Democrats who were the only ones that were populist, in modern times. The Repubs only pretended to be, and they continue to pretend (with much help from the MSM). That was and remains the Big Lie for them. Not only that, but how can you have a real populist movement operated and controlled by big money? These two concepts ARE mutually exclusive, unlike some concepts. The Nazis also pretended to be populist, and at first kind of were. But that facade didn’t last long.

    The Dems always disagree too much between themselves- that weakens them, and that continues also. This is happening to the Repubs now- the extreme Right is gaining some ground due to the general publics’ anger, and this could weaken the Republican party, not make it stronger or “populist.” The powers that be in the Repub party will shut it down. And if Queen Palin is allowed to win another election of some kind she will NOT be your Savior. Obama was never any Savior, he just successfully gave people hope for something better. He was, as usual, another false prophet. Nobody is allowed to significantly change the system. He or she would simply drop out of the sky one fine day if they tried.

    The entire system needs a serious overhaul- without that nothing will change for the better. Will the overhaul happen? No, not unless we have another Great Depression or World War, and even then I doubt it. Powerful civilizations crumble from within, as we are now doing. Nothing I can think of will change that fact, the least of which your faux-populist “movement.”

    • Dan McGrath

      Actually it’s the Democrats who were the only ones that were populist, in modern times. The Repubs only pretended to be, and they continue to pretend (with much help from the MSM).

      Bwah! That’s about the funniest thing you’ve ever written! Are you serious?

      Not only that, but how can you have a real populist movement operated and controlled by big money?

      Equally hilarious. There is no Republican equivalent of George Soros (who pays for nearly everything leftist these days) and Democrat politicians are ahead in the money race. Trial Lawyers and big corporate interests give more money to Dems than to Republicans by a 3-1 margin.

      Here’s a good example of liberal money and liberal dominance of the mainstream media: Did you ever see that SNL skit with George Soros & the Sandlers about the mortgage meltdown? It really hit the nail on the head and it was out of character for usually liberal SNL. Soros and his buddies got a hold of NBC (also known as GE, the pushers of global warming alarmism to sell more of their junk) and made them censor the skit. The web’s been pretty well scrubbed of it. It only aired once (live), will never air again and the version NBC posted online was censored. Liberals control the media, the money, the Congress, the White House and the bureaucracies. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/06/the-missing-snl-bailout-skit-and-the-soros-connection/ Here’s the skit NBC tried to make vanish and Youtube (Google) won’t allow.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

        Why even go there Dan? You know Rob will respond with some more leftist drivel and propaganda and no progress will have been made. It’s like stepping in quicksand!

        • Rob N. Hood

          You think THAT’s all the “censoring” going on? Really? Ever watch/read MSM news/newspapers. ALL “censored” ALL the time.

  • I have been trying to participate again and again, but all my posts are blocked. Have a nice time guys and teach Rob as much as you can.

  • paul wenum

    Your posts should not be blocked unless you use language that is not deemed proper. Profane language for example. If not, there is a problem.

    • Rob N. Hood

      Try English… that might help.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Touch a nerve did I Dan?

    The truth hurts sometimes.

    The “Liberals” today are supposedly the Left in America, and that’s the disastrous part. You see nothing whatsoever of this kind of anemic (non-)politics on the Right. Regressives in this country are, unfortunately, passionate, strategic, mobilized, extreme, well-funded, and effective. And because of that, they are winning, and have been for thirty years. Where there used to be a left in America, only a shadow if its former self. Obama, for example – the supposed socialist in the typical regressive’s infantile paranoid nightmares – is actually one of the most conservative presidents of the last century. And he is not alone.

    It’s axiomatic among the grandees of the moronic mainstream media that he is a liberal, to such an extent that the question is never even discussed. In fact – though I suspect he is ultimately far more of an apolitical careerist than anything – the truth is that his policies are so regressive that they cannot meaningfully be distinguished from George W. Bush’s. And I don’t mean that in the powerfully true relative sense that reminds us of what a real liberal president would actually look like, either, though contemplating that long-lost comparative benchmark puts the point even more emphatically. And I don’t even mean that in the sense of a Ralph Naderesque critique about the lack of fundamental difference between the Tweedledee and Tweedledum parties. I simply mean that a purely empirical side-by-side comparison across the board – from civil liberties to civil rights to ‘defense’ budget to war fighting to Middle East policy to Wall Street sycophancy to every other meaningful policy area, including health care by the way – reveals a literal near identity between the two administrations, other than in style.

    The upshot of all this is that America has been moving seriously rightward, at least concerning matters of political economy if not social policy, for a full generation or two now. Where once there was a right, now there is a rabid right. And where once there was a left, now there is a collection of apolitical careerists. Given the powerful ability of the right to tilt the playing field in every meaningful dimension, the policy options seemingly open to these would-be progressives when they gain office (which happens almost purely because of regressive over-extension, rather than on their own merits) are effectively, but not actually, proscribed to more of the same right-wing insanity that has brought this country so much grief and decline since the Hollywood Cowboy rode into town and borrowed insipid two-dimensional morality plays from the sets of B-movie lots and screened them as the cheap horror production known as American politics.

  • paul wenum

    There was once serious thought and excellent discourse in this Country. You have now proven me wrong. There truly isn’t any longer. The lines have been drawn. Typical. Many words, no substance, content nor facts. Let’s see what happens in November. Rob? Another “Gone with the Wind?” Your party hopefully will be shortly. the silent beast is awakening. Voters, that is! We shall all see and yes, I have literally “eatin Crow.” Not this time!

  • Rob N. Hood

    “My” party is already gone- I know that…!!! Yours is too, but you don’t know it, yet. So what’s the alternative, are you going to try to get a third party elected into power? Good luck. Not in this country. THAT’s my point Paul. There are no lines to be drawn anymore- that is just another Big Lie to divide and conquer. You are falling for it, not me.

    • Dan

      That’s where you’re wrong. There’s a revolution going on in the Republican Party and it’s been very successful. The grassroots are taking the party back.

  • Rob N. Hood

    We’ll see won’t we. But to take back what it is you think you lost (which you really didn’t, but that’s another issue) isn’t going to take very much.

    Get a load of what the Far Right sold their souls for: From the Bowling Green Country Club, Dr. Rand Paul:

    “I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words,” Mr. Paul said in his victory speech in Bowling Green, Ky. “We have come to take our government back.”

    Welcome to the really truly world of WACKY. Yep, the Republican Party is made up of some of the weirdest, wildest people ever! Imagine that: The Country Club Crowd wants to reclaim government! Apparently the “have mores” want more! There’s another word for it- Greed.

  • JeffM

    If global warming is the crisis that government says it is, then only the development of affordable 24/7 alternative energy can replace our trusty 24/7 fossil fuels. This development will take time and cost a lot of money.

    Governments haven’t spent a penny for this development work. They have no incentive to do so. A new, 24/7 alternative energy source will make carbon trading obsolete, as well as windmills, solar panels, and biofuels (none of which can provide anything approaching 24/7 power. To exist, the aforementioned actually REQUIRE continued reliance on fossil fuels to provide primary power to society. Stated differently, the existence of an affordable 24/7 energy source that doesn’t burn fossil fuels would replace fossil fuels, windmills, solar panels, biofuels, and cause the carbon trading (derivatives) market to become just as worthless as sub-prime mortgages.

    Stated still differently, our government and a handful of big corporatations have worked together to creat a multi-trillion dollar scheme that “cannot be allowed to fail”, and which WILL fail if anyone ever invents an alternative 24/7 energy source. The masterminds behind this are truly evil geniuses.

    Do we actually have a crisis? Hardly. Is harmful manmade global warming real, or is it only a shill for selling us products we don’t need or for adding more taxes, laws, and regulations that dramatically change our way of life?

    For non-scientific reasons I have always disbelieved the AGW orthodoxy. In my humble opinion, the fact that government is not funding the development of an affordable 24/7 energy source is proof positive that AGW is nothing more than the greatest hoax ever foisted upon the American people.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      Nice! I like your point. Very well put. Thanks.

  • paul wenum

    Pelosi, Reid, Bloomberg,(NY) et al all of which are members of “Country Clubs.” Is there a problem with that? Ok, let’s pay $20,000.00 for a Room at a Hyatt/Radisson or whatever, versus a “Country Club where you have already paid your membership? You have no reality with the real world. By the way, I’m not a member of a Country Club. I’m a low maintenance guy.

  • Rob N. Hood

    You forgot to name all the Republican clubbers… why is that?

  • paul wenum

    Name all the Dems. Dare you. You would be surprised.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Nice Alinsky response. Pretty good for a non-Commie.

    More news pertaining to The Worst Democrat Everâ„¢:

    “The Obama Administration’s move to the right is about to give conservatives a victory they could not have anticipated, even under Bush. HUD, under Obama, submitted legislation called PETRA to Congress that would result in the privatization of all public housing in America.”

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      The Obama administration’s move to the right? Is there another right I don’t know about?

  • Rob N. Hood

    Obama would be considered the moderate Right (as opposed to being just slightly conservative) . You guys are the far Right, bordering on the extreme Right.

  • Rob N. Hood

    10 reasons why Obama failed the Oil Spill:

    1) Insisting this is BP’s problem is not a solution. 2) The US has failed to build any deep sea exploration exploration subs or robotic systems. 3) NOAA has failed miserably. 4) Failure to ask the Japanese, French, Chinese and Russians for assistance (because they have the vessels). 5) Failure to demand full and public information from BP from day one. 6) Failure to have any response capability of any sort. 7) Failure to clean house at the corrupt Minerals Management Service where cocaine, lurid sex and cash favors were a way of life. 8) Allowing BP to control all access to the location and data including the use of U.S. coast guard to restrict media access. 9) Allowing BP to ignore US EPA orders and still using hundreds of thousands of gallons of their old stock of highly toxic dispersant, known to be deadly to marine life, when they had a far less toxic brand available, until forced to switch by the EPA (but only to ignore the EPA since). 10) Finally, refusing to force and lead congress to increase the liability limits for oil companies from $75 million to an unlimited amount.

  • paul wenum

    If president Obama is to “the Right,” then I’m a “Inuit” that eats “Blubber.” Similar to “blather” from you. Man, where are you getting your talking points?

  • Rob N. Hood

    I don’t know about the Inuit part- but the blubber you ingest is the MSM and MIC propaganda.

  • paul wenum

    I note you don’t travel far.

  • Rob N. Hood

    I don’t know if you’re Inuit or not is what I meant. Traveling doesn’t make one intellegent. Wisdom does.

  • paul wenum

    Traveling does not give knowledge if you cannot comprehend or respect how different cultures live/exist. Absent expanding your knowledge, right wrong or indifferent from your limited experiences you cannot comment on something that you have never experienced. Wisdom comes from knowledge, being in the trenches, listening, failing, succeeding, failing again and LEARNING from your mistakes so that you can pass this wisdom EARNED to others. My mentors were all in their late seventies and Eighties. Never learned anything from a youngster like you. Suggest that you look for a mentor with years of “real World experiences”. It will “wake you up” after Listening. Knowing that it is “Memorial Day” would suggest that you talk to a possible mentor that helped build this beautiful country with their blood, sweat and tears! Think about it.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Gee, another unnecessary lecture from Paul. Disputing a simple statement – why? Are you incapable of agreeing on anything with a person who you politcally disagree with? Does that say anything about you or the right-wing personality?

  • paul wenum

    Politics aside, my personality is fine and I’m comfortable with being who I am. Are you? Politics in your well being is immaterial.

  • paul wenum

    Statements are never “simple.” There is always thought behind every statement be it right or wrong. Never forget that my friend.

  • Yeah, Neil I acknowledge that idea. The article presents how nature works, but the reality of climate change is still possible. I also appreciate the effort of Copenhagen summit representatives for making efforts in taking care of our planet. This is ours to live. Everyone should be concerned about it.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.