Obama's energy legislation

Barack Obama (D-IL) is unveiling major legislation today that would force power plants, oil refineries and other polluters to cut greenhouse emissions by two percent each year.  The Illinois Senator is joining together with Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ):

Under the proposed legislation, greenhouse gas emissions would be cutfrom 6,100 metric tons of carbon equivalent in 2004 to about 2,100metric tons in 2050, according to a fact sheet describing thelegislation.

"With each passing year, the consequences of federal inaction onreducing greenhouse gas emissions become more devastating for ourchildren and grandchildren, and the range of solutions grows smaller,"Obama said in a statement Thursday.

Last week, Obama submitted another environmental bill, along with the support of Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Tom Harkin (D-IA).  That legislation, if passed, would increase funding of ethanol and other renewable fuels.

2006 was the hottest year on record.  According to British researchers, 2007 is expected to set the new mark.  Before 2006, 2005 was the hottest year ever in the Northern Hemisphere.  Before 2005, 2004 was the 4th hottest year since 1861, according to a UN report.

Comments

[Tony]

TR Editorial:

I can't say this enough, Global Warming is a factual issue which we need to deal with. Even the most conservative of all conservatives will agree to some degree, "oh ok, it's getting a little warmer, but now on to our main story Paris Hilton", and there are the conservation Kooks on the other end "Dig a hole and bring water and dried fruit and save yourselves". I am in the group that knows it's a serious issue and needs to be a MAJOR topis of discussion and let's start making some drastic changes. I propose anyone for or against the Global Warming theory to just research the info., for example, go to LIVE SCIENCE website and read up on it (or any site that isn't biased). All one needs to do is think about how they feel when a hurricane is coming and you live in a coastal town and you sit there watching the water level rise 2 feet higher than normal, we're freaking out because we "might" lose our sailboat! (oh my!). Imagine 50, 75, 100 years from now when our future generations are walking around with gas masks, living in houses that are floating on some types of floatation barrels etc.

My point is what is wrong with the people that are dismissing this as "ahh, it ain't so bad".

TR (in a blow off of steam)

[George]

Tony,
I appreciate your argument and basically agree with it. However I think that the real way to get energy reform to become mainstream (like Paris Hilton) is to frame the discussion as it relates to national security and the economy. For some reason, a large portion of the country is skeptical of anything to do with global warming so they just reject it without thinking.

Energy reform/indepedence will go a long way to freeing us from our entanglement in the middle east. It will also create a new sector of our economy, much like computing has over the past 2 decades.

I don't understand why Democrats never bring this up when challenged about our national security. It drives me mad. All the pro-war people say "well what is your plan for Iraq if we dont augment troops?" The correct response is this: "This war cannot be won now and that is only Bush's fault. There is no short term solution to this problem. There is only a long term solution: energy indepedence."

[ted K]

Thank you George for admitting what the Dem party will not.
Give up.

And if the Dems wanted less dependence on foreign oil WHILE at the same time loooking for alternative fuel, why not be all for drilling in ANWAR?

Riddle me that Batman.

[Administrator: Todd]

George, thanks for bringing up the word "augment." I think that is the word of the week -- definitely changes my mind about the whole Iraq thing. Condi is brilliant, isn't she? I mean, come on. I would rather have our leaders be drop-dead boring and know what they're doing than talk to us like we are children. It's really getting old.

And good points, Tony. Thanks for the link.

Ted, there is hardly any oil in ANWR. The whole point of ANWR is to have it just in case a hurricane destroys resources in the Gulf of Mexico. Also, it won't be until 2025 when ANWR will be "fully" functioning with peak drilling capacity. In reality, all that Bush has to do is tap the strategic petroleum reserve, which we already have. How come he has rarely done that under his presidency...while consumers have had to suffer? I'll tell you why. Because your take-the-moral-high-ground Republican party is indebted to the oil companies.

[George]

Ted, I hate the Republican Party. And Democrats have a lot to prove. Hopefully they will recognize. I know the whole system is fucked but Dems are better...right now.

ANWR is such a cop out. I'd let you drill there though if you let me make every government vehicle a hybrid over the next 5 years.

Augmenting is for breasts.

[ted K]

Hardly any oil in ANWAR?

Todd, you are not that simple are you?

The speculation on the find there is of one of the largest finds in recent history. Even could be enough to totally do away with Saudi Arabia's imports.

How is that NOT good?

And the STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE is called that for a reason.
You just don't go tapping into that willy nilly, just cause the price of oil increases.
Both parties get fat from Oil contribtions by the by.

George, you HATE the repub party?

No kidding.

I expected nothing less from an angry little LIB like yourself.
Just anger and spite spew from your posts.
I couldn't imagine trying to hold a rational conversation with you, face to face, without you spinning emotionally out of control because of that exact mindset.

You must have HATED JFK, who was very much an old righty Dem in his day.