Hot Summer, Hot Air?

July 24, 2006 10:25 AM

Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords has introduced the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (full text – PDF) [more inside]
posted by nickmark (37 comments total)

The bill calls for significant cuts in US CO2 emissions: stepping down to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. It puts EPA in charge of requiring these reductions (handy, given the current Supreme Court case disputing their authority and responsibility), authorizes a market-based approach to meeting them, sets out CO2 emissions limits for vehicles, and creates a renewable electricity requirement (20% by 2020), among other things. If its emissions goals were actually met, it would make a very real difference, though its stated target – not more than 2 degrees C and 450 ppm – is awfully ambitious.

How likely is the bill to pass? Don’t hold your breath: First, it lacks a single Republican cosponsor. Second, New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman, who offered the Sense of the Senate resolution to the Senate’s version of the 2005 Energy Policy Act (large PDF) – which called for mandatory economy-wide action to curb emissions, and passed – was decidedly lukewarm in his praise of Jeffords’ bill. Finally, while Jeffords is the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that committee is chaired by James "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" Inhofe. If Jeffords weren’t retiring at the end of his term, one might be tempted to call it an election-year stunt...
posted by nickmark at 10:26 AM on July 24, 2006

So basically, yet another actually good bill that has a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed?
posted by slater at 10:36 AM on July 24, 2006

It's great to see some action, any action, but this is too little too slow - and it has no chance of passing.

We need personal carbon credits. Until it costs real money to drive around and burn light bulbs, too few are going to make the serious changes required.
posted by stbalbach at 10:37 AM on July 24, 2006

You can put anything you want in a bill when you know it's not even going to make it out of committee. Just pie-in-the-sky. Why not ban cars altogether?
posted by smackfu at 10:38 AM on July 24, 2006

How long before the U.S. mainstream media successfully manufactures the public opinion that Jeffords is "just another alarmist liberal kook"? ... 2 or 3 days?
posted by wfc123 at 10:39 AM on July 24, 2006

And even if by some miracle it did pass, Preznit Dickhole would veto it, right?
posted by DenOfSizer at 10:40 AM on July 24, 2006

CO2 is essential for life on this planet. Why does Jim Jeffords hate life?
posted by 2sheets at 10:47 AM on July 24, 2006

The phrase "tilting at windmills" leaps to mind. I admire his idealism, though.
posted by keswick at 10:48 AM on July 24, 2006

Two words: KY OTO.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:48 AM on July 24, 2006

Gore '08, maybe?
posted by gurple at 10:49 AM on July 24, 2006

The "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act?" Democrats really need to stop giving bills names that accurately reflect what they're for and start using names like "THE FREEDOM FOR AMERICAN CHILDREN ACT." It'd be a start, at least.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 10:49 AM on July 24, 2006

I would love to see a slew of bills like this leading up to the elections this November. Despite the fact that none of them would pass, it needs to be painfully obvious to anyone and everyone in America that democrats represent progress and planning for the future while republicans represent the uber wealthy and are largely a pack of corporate shills that play lip service to religious ideology in order to cover up their more heinous crimes against man and the planet.
posted by sourbrew at 10:53 AM on July 24, 2006

Espy Gillespie, Jeffords is an Independent not a Democrat. Even though all the co-sponsors are Dems.
posted by Red58 at 11:01 AM on July 24, 2006

Good point, sourbrew (though I agree with b1tr0t, characterizing the Dems that glowingly is a bit much); this is probably aimed directly at November, rather than Prez in '08.

Still, if we see more bills like this, more focus on environmental issues, do you think enough people might start backing Gore for '08 that he'd have a chance?

A lot of it, of course, depends on nature. Man, I'm starting to feel like a Republican. Impending wars seem to help Republican candidates; now maybe hurricanes help Dems.
posted by gurple at 11:10 AM on July 24, 2006

b1tr0t,

I do not believe that democrats are infallible, and in fact I disagree with many of their positions. However, given the option of more time spent under the heavy heavy hand of this republican congress or becoming a fervent democratic supporter I'll take the latter. They aren't perfect but they are a much much much lesser evil.

"A lot of it, of course, depends on nature. Man, I'm starting to feel like a Republican. Impending wars seem to help Republican candidates; now maybe hurricanes help Dems."

Yeah I have never understood why wars help Republicans, I would rather have a calculating person with less testosterone than a chicken hawk any day of the week. As for hurricanes they certainly help the democrats which is why it's bitter sweet that this year has been relatively hurricane free so far.
posted by sourbrew at 11:17 AM on July 24, 2006

Too little, too late - not drastic enough, doesn't have enough support, and is vague in several areas. I'd call it an election-year stunt.
posted by FormlessOne at 11:20 AM on July 24, 2006

I think it's gonna be difficult for any party to push any kind of environmental law that actually does something until everyone agrees that 1)there's a problem, and 2)there's a solution that'll please everybody.

Or 3)monkeys fly out of Bush's butt.
posted by Bearman at 11:21 AM on July 24, 2006

it needs to be painfully obvious to anyone and everyone in America that democrats represent progress and planning

Exactly.

Beats me why the Repubs can't pass pollution control legislation in their own happy way: repeal all taxes for cars that do 50mpg+, all taxes on E50+ fuel, and make all investment in renewable energy tax deductible.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 11:26 AM on July 24, 2006

So basically, yet another actually good bill that has a snowball's chance in hell Alaska 100 years from now of getting passed?

Basically, yes.
posted by pinespree at 11:26 AM on July 24, 2006

>>> We need personal carbon credits.

TerraPass.
posted by grabbingsand at 11:29 AM on July 24, 2006

Anybody who actually uses TerraPass has too much money and/or guilt.
posted by keswick at 11:32 AM on July 24, 2006

Good old Jeffords ..... the GOP is still having seizures over his defection from the party in May 2001.
posted by blucevalo at 11:39 AM on July 24, 2006

I don't know its only 50 bucks to offset my cars emissions, but yeah I am le broke. I take condolence in the fact that I only drive about 3 miles a day, although I suppose that means I should be using a bike.
posted by sourbrew at 11:42 AM on July 24, 2006

I always thought once the big oil companies got on board with alternative energies (like British Petroleum) it would be solved. They'd see the writing on the wall, spend big time on this stuff and make even more money from what would have to be an expensive change over to the new technologies (like lp's to cd's, vhs to dvd's etc).
posted by Bearman at 11:42 AM on July 24, 2006

When will Americans finally figure out that the "Democrat vs. Republican" thing going on in D.C. is a charade?
posted by wfc123 at 12:02 PM on July 24, 2006

We may have already missed the 2-degree/450 ppm window of opportunity, but I'm not completely comfortable calling this bill "too little too late," though I'm certain it's not going to become law. The emissions standards for cars, for example, are 205 grams of CO2 per mile for vehicles under 8,500 lb. By my math, that's equivalent to a 42 mpg standard (improving vehicle efficiency being the easiest way to reduce grams/mile, and assuming perfect combustion and other simplifiers). Not great, and it wouldn't take effect until 2016, but something. The national aggregate targets -- a 2% reduction every year from 2010 to 2020, one third of 80% below 1990 by 2030, two thirds by 2040, and a full 80% reduction by 2050 -- are pretty aggressive, and would actually mean something. They could also be accelerated if the EPA found cause to do so. I'm not sure that's all achievable, and certainly this bill isn't what's going to make it happen, but getting the US's CO2 emissions down to 20% of what they were in 1990 would be pretty impressive.
posted by nickmark at 12:10 PM on July 24, 2006

When will Americans finally figure out that the "Democrat vs. Republican" thing going on in D.C. is a charade?

So you're suggesting that if 50,000 more democrats had bothered to vote in 2000 you'd be in exactly the same mess you're in now? Saying that "They're all the same, it doesn't make any difference" is exactly the kind of cynical defeatism that basically cost you your country in the first place.
posted by slatternus at 12:37 PM on July 24, 2006

Never underestimate the power of publicity. The bill might not pass, but it is a talking point. Would it be better to say nothing, to raise no alternatives?
posted by Cranberry at 1:23 PM on July 24, 2006

Finally, while Jeffords is the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that committee is chaired by James "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" Inhofe.

The committee had a recent spat with the AP over Gore's film.

Since Inhofe is a man of faith (with no homosexuals in his family,) and was one of the few with the spiritual insight to understand 9/11, I have to assume that he speaks the truth.
posted by homunculus at 1:38 PM on July 24, 2006

If 50 000 more democrats had bothered to vote, the USA would be in a mess very similar to the one they are now in. The problem has been one of electing crooks, electing idiots, and letting the bastards get away with any amount of corrupt shit. Both parties have stagnated to the point that corruption is more comman than integrity, and stupidity more common than wisdom.

What will save the USA is not electing democrats, but electing the single most sensible and honest candidate available. Republican or democrat, the sensible and honest politicians that have appeared on The Daily Show or popularised themselves via the web word of mouth, have been people who would advance your country to modern, "adult" status.

And understand this: people in other (European-model) countries look at the US Republican and Democrat parties and see them both as right-wing. From our point of view the main difference between your parties is their agression toward other nations: the Republicans tend to be more hawkish, both economically and militarily.

You need to elect a better set of people at all levels of your governments.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:47 PM on July 24, 2006

If 50 000 more democrats had bothered to vote, the USA would be in a mess very similar to the one they are now in.

Disagree. Might still be a mess, but I 100% believe that it would not resemble today's mess.
posted by inigo2 at 2:21 PM on July 24, 2006

Would it be better to say nothing, to raise no alternatives?

You're absolutely right.
posted by Bearman at 2:57 PM on July 24, 2006

The old "both parties suck and are the same canard," eh? I know what that'll get you -- a guarantee of many more years of the clusterfuck that is the American government.

The folks that currently run the government (they call themselves Republicans, but the reality is they have no ideology other than "let the rich do whatever they want") thrive on that sentiment. They helped, in no small part, to create that sentiment.

You're playing into their hand when you say "they're all evil."

Pick a side. You have no choice, really.
posted by teece at 3:50 PM on July 24, 2006

The Dems were so awesome at governing that their popularity lost them both the House and the Senate.
posted by smackfu at 9:09 PM on July 24, 2006

Anybody who actually uses TerraPass has too much money and/or guilt.


BTW -- TerraPass is a *for profit* company. There are better choices that do the same thing that are non-profit (ie. more of your money goes to its intended source). You don't get all the fancy stickers and multi-colored paper packaging but who needs it.
posted by stbalbach at 11:07 PM on July 24, 2006

Cold, Hard Facts
posted by homunculus at 12:05 PM on July 27, 2006

Pat Robertson interviews Inhofe
posted by homunculus at 5:23 PM on July 27, 2006