John Kerry says he has Republican votes for the climate change bill, which means I suppose that Lindsey Graham and the senators from Maine are thinking of being reasonable. But the problem is that there are a bunch of Democratic senators who want nothing to do with cap and trade.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
7 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
there’s ALWAYS a problem with “a bunch of Democratic senators”. if it’s not ben nelson trying to rob women of their reproductive rights, it’s kent conrad trying to cut social security, or blanche lincoln shilling for wal-mart.
The Democratic Party: As Reliable and Steady as a 1978 Plymouth Volare Wagon.
Big reason i don’t care anymore.
I don’t see how this passes.
We can pick up three Republicans from this, as you’ve stated, but there’s more than three problem children in our caucus.
Bayh, Prior, Licoln, Dorgan, Byrd, Rockefeller, Conrad, Nelson, Landreiu are all more than likely to vote no.
Another possible no vote is Feingold, as:
a.) His environmental record is probably the worst out of all his votes.
b.) He refuses to vote for it if it will increase burden on the middle class whatsoever.
I don’t know how he defines the middle class, but he could be a problem vote.
To be honest we are probably already past the point where cap and trade would do much good. We need to take far more serious actions if we hope to avoid the freight train that is headed our way. The data is already coming in showing that current warming and other climate effects are far worse than the IPCC predicted (which frankly were extremely conservative to begin with). Sadly, the drastic measures that should be taken (a Mega-Manhattan style project to develop renewable and climate neutral alternative sources of energy) isn’t likely to become the consensus viewpoint until it is much too late to prevent a catastrophe.
And by that I mean mass extinctions, extreme famines and droughts, extreme weather of all sorts (hurricanes, blizzards, tornadoes and flooding), loss of arable farm land, mass migrations of entire peoples, extensive coastal erosion from rising sea levels, diminished water supplies in some of the most highly populated and volatile regions on Earth, yearly fire seasons that will dwarf the ones we see now, and regional wars (which are likely to include the use of nuclear weapons) fought over resources like food and water.
But hey, I’ll probably be dead by then (unless the GHG feedback effects kick it up another notch, which isn’t beyond the realm of the possible). My children and grandchildren (should I have any) and yours, however, will not be so fortunate.
When global climate change first appeared on the scientific radar publicly almost twenty years ago, PBS has a special broadcast narrated by James Burke. It was a forecast of the future.
The scenario laid out is that governments would dither until the first successive catastrophes struck (a Katrina-like typhoon in Japan was the example, as I remember). Then in 2015, things will have gotten so bad that Japan would lead a political initiative to do something about it, and that something would be a global regulatory body with stringent regulations, coincidentally headquartered in Tokyo.
It sure looks like we are on that trajectory.
And it is very instructive that the market fundamentalists of the Republican Party have an aversion to creating a market for scarce CO2 disposal rights. They love the market when it suits them. But they love cronyism even more.
We’ll see. Even if this is true, and if Obama is sincere now, he could honestly change his mind.
Absolute doses exceeding 600 mg/day are not recommended. Buy Clonazepam without prescription
The recommended dosage of Diflucan for esophageal candidiasis is 200 mg on the first day, followed by 100 mg once daily. Doses up to 400 mg/day may be used, based on medical judgment of the patient’s response to therapy. For the treatment of Candida urinary tract infections and peritonitis, daily doses of 50-200 mg have been used in open, noncomparative studies of small numbers of patients. The recommended dosage for treatment of acute cryptococcal meningitis is 400 mg on the first day, followed by 200 mg once daily.
For systemic Candida infections including candidemia, disseminated candidiasis, and pneumonia, optimal therapeutic dosage and duration of therapy have not been established. A dosage of 400 mg once daily may be used, based on medical judgment of the patient’s response to therapy. Clinical evidence of oropharyngeal candidiasis generally resolves within several days, but treatment should be continued for at least 2 weeks to decrease the likelihood of relapse.
The recommended dosage of Diflucan for oropharyngeal candidiasis is 200 mg on the first day, followed by 100 mg once daily. The recommended dosage of Diflucan for suppression of relapse of cryptococcal meningitis in patients with AIDS is 200 mg once daily.
Buy Lorazepam without prior prescription online In open, noncomparative studies of small numbers of patients, doses of up to 400 mg daily have been used. Patients who are anticipated to have severe granulocytopenia (less than 500 neutrophils per cu mm) should start Diflucan prophylaxis several days before the anticipated onset of neutropenia, and continue for 7 days after the neutrophil count rises above 1000 cells per cu mm. Buy Diazepam without prior prescription online
If find it difficult to believe that anything will ever happen about the environment. There’s all this talk but ultimately if it’s going to affect business then any government will shy away from it.