House Passes Landmark Climate Bill

Before I head into the mtns. in smoggy Osaka prefecture...
~
"The difference here, though, is business is split on this bill with utilities, including the Edison Election Institute, Wall Street, clean coal groups and retailers such as Nike and Starbucks supporting the bill and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and petroleum groups opposing it."
~
Plus what all the pols say, plus what our MSM says? Would it be asking too much to tell us what the scientists/environmental groups say? I know, I know which groups like it and which don't, but shouldn't they have a central voice in assessing the bill's strengths/weaknesses?

.
Hi JNS, thanks for answering me on the earlier thread. I guess my concern is not that the Climate change bill won't be changed, but that it won't be changed to be significantly better than it is now.
.
In other words, the most liberal, best version of something like climate change, or health care, is going to come out of the House. The Senate is going to reflect the corporate interests, thanks to the veto power that has been given to the republicans and the DINOs. And then there'll be the conference committee, which may change things, but I doubt significantly for the better.
.
Here's a Digby post on the climate change bill.
.
Here's an AP story about health care, and the process.
~

Thanks for staying on this story, JNS. I too would love to see more of the policy weeds - what does this policy actually do according to climatologists and economists - but today was about the sausage-mak...I mean process. Good reporting; good blogging.

By the way. I was watching the vote as it went down and there was one Dem who voted for it and then at the last minute when it was apparent that it would pass they switched to nay. I would LOVE to know who that spineless coward was.
.
And truthfully while there weren't many, there were a few Dems who got up and gave some rousing speeches in support of the legislation before hand. Its worth trying to look for them on youtube or on cspan's website.

It is amazing what spineless cowards the Democrats are. Or if they aren't cowards then they are in the pockets of the corporations. Unfortunately Ken Spain is right. No way the Senate passes this, or health care. Conrad, Baucus, Reid, and Feinstein were bought a long time ago. The insurance industry has the receipts framed on their walls of their office.
.
How badly have the Dems capitulated to the oil, coal, and insurance industries? It is so bad that Maria Cantwell, Senator from Washington c/o Premera, has said she supports the "co-op" idea. Cantwell represents Washington State. The bulk of the state's population resides between Bellingham and Olympia, and it is full of Democrats. Despite this she doesn't represent her state, she represents the Insurance industry.
,
The only think I take comfort in is that I've never voted for her, and I've given money to her primary opponents. We Democrats in Washington State need to get busy recruiting someone - anyone - to represent us.

For once the Republicans have a legitimate beef about the process. I can't understand why the House leadership would give them this point by presenting a 300-page amendment late last night.

Count on the Republicans to overplay their new hand, however, using the process issue as a distraction from the substance of the bill. It might actually be a good piece of legislation, and we need a good climate control bill, but it'll be a while before we hear much serious discusion about the merits as the opponents – echoed by the media hungry for friction – go on and on about the late amendment.

Steve Benen has a couple of really smart posts on this. The first is on the process: COMING UP ACES. The second is on the DENIERS. And I have a diverse collection of blog posts over at my place: Cap & Trade & Stoopid Wingnuts Fainting.
.
And Yglesias noted something critical for those (including me) who understand that this is a flawed and insufficient bill:
.
I've heard some clever people who don't want to be silly denialists about the threat of climate change, and who don't want to be silly alarmists about the threat of Waxman-Markey, but who don't have a self-conception as belonging to the same political coalition as Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi attempt to argue that the answer is “decrease.” But I've never heard any of the people actually charged with the international negotiations say that. As best I can tell, everyone involved with the Copenhagen process, everyone involved with the U.N., and all the climate negotiators from the major European countries are hoping for something like this bill to pass in order to give the international diplomatic process additional momentum.

I figured you guys would get a kick out of this story of a cowardly Democratic Congressman who literally cast a no vote and ran away and hid. You can't make this kind of stuff up.
.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0609/Where_in_the_world_is_Ciro_Rodriguez.html

This is your discourse:
.
"Perhaps it was an omen, or perhaps a sign of global warming, but as the gavel came down a thunderstorm that had been threatening all day erupted violently over the Capitol."
.
"Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.... And who's going to be hurt most [by ACES] the poor, the people on limited income…the people who can least afford to have their energy taxes raised by MIT says $3,100 per family.... This bill must be defeated. We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it's a hoax!"
.

"Democratic Congressman who literally cast a no vote and ran away and hid. You can't make this kind of stuff up."
.
Jelly fish are more solid than some of the clowns in the democratic party. Time to start making these people pay a price. I care less about him voting no. I care more about him being a friggin coward.

gysgt said:
.
I care less about him voting no. I care more about him being a friggin coward.
.
A FRIKKIN MEN
.
I said the exact same thing on my blog. Who wants to vote for a guy or woman who is such a wuss that they can't cast a vote and take the heat for it. Hell if thats your vote, running away won't change it. And whatever reprecussions you were going to get for the vote before you hauled ass you will still get after they catch up to you.
.
Ridiculous.

CLEAN COAL groups?
.
Not "hypothetically" clean coal groups?
.
Not "supposedly" clean coal groups?
.
Not "deliberately misleading" clean coal groups?
.
Not even "clean" coal groups?
.
Ye ought not t' be promotin' th' industry lies, lass!

I wonder if Joe Klein still thinks Mark Sanford is "almost admirable".
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/27jenny.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper
.

Through a spokeswoman, Mrs. Sanford declined requests to be interviewed for this article, but told The Associated Press she learned of her husband's affair early this year when she found a letter he had written. She told him to end the relationship, but he repeatedly asked permission to visit the woman in Argentina in the months that followed.
.

“I said absolutely not,” Mrs. Sanford told The A.P. “It's one thing to forgive adultery. It's another to condone it.”
.
Then, last week, when the governor told her he needed time alone to write, she had specifically warned him not to see his mistress. She said she was devastated when he went to meet her in Argentina.

.
Anybody who believes he went there to break it of or that he would have come clean had he not been caught at the airport is smoking something.

sg:
.
You did hear, I'm sure, that Rush Limbaugh blames Obama for Sanfords' indiscretions by forcing him to take the stimulus money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMGmyLV-B0k
.
What a laugh! Never mind that Obama can only sign the bill, no one can force a state to take it.
.
It was his own stinkin' South Carolina congress that made him do it, not the divil!

It was his own stinkin' Republican led South Carolina congress that made him do it, not the divil!

.
fixt

Without speaking to the veracity of climate-change concerns, does no one find it in the least bit interesting that the industries that stand to gain the most from carbon-regulation are those with the closest working relationships with Congress on the matter? We are rightly skeptical of war when advocated by the weapons-manufactures, we are rightly skeptical of the necessity of drug-prescriptions when championed through the AMA by pharmaceutical companies, and we are suspicious of claims against health-care reform by the health-insurance industry. These are logical hesitations on our part that warrant skepticism. Why, then, is there so little talk of what the WSJ refers to as the "Climate-Industrial Complex"?

My position re: Climate Change is probably a little bit outside the mainstream.
There's no doubt in my mind that human-caused climate change is a real phenomenon with real consequences. I simply doubt that there's a d@nm thing we can do about it. We blew our chance in 1974...

Why, then, is there so little talk of what the WSJ refers to as the "Climate-Industrial Complex"?
.
Man, what the f--k are you talking about?

exile - go F yerself!
.
YARR!

Cliff...
.
exile/neo be th' newer, smarter, more spidery-invitation-inta-th' tangled web version o' spongy.
.
No matter wha' anyone be sayin' exile be spinnin' an' spinnin' an' spinnin' 'is troll-y little web.
.
Don't be touchin' 'im!
.
Arrgh!

Cliff -
.
Per'aps "more devious an' cunnin'" would be a fairer representation, based on 'is success a lurin' folks inta 'is web so's 'e could be wrappin' 'em up in 'is silky poisonous bonds in th' hate crimes thread.
.
Arrgh!

Exiled:
.
CO2 is an efficient greenhouse gas no matter who is in a "complex", politically.
.
If anything, it's good that there is at least some political force to counter the opposition. I'm sure that in reality, there is a "Peace-industrial Complex" too.
.
I'll pick 'em over our other, more traditional choices.
.
PD:
.
You might be right, you might be wrong, maybe the actual trigger point was passed a hundred years ago. It's possible. After all, it will take a minimum of 100,000 to 200,000 years to naturally cycle out the existing CO2 rise.
.
No one can model the tripwire closely enough to know where it is with that sort of resolution, which leaves your opinion just as good as anyone else's.
.
I believe in erring on the safe side, but who knows, maybe the trigger is 100 years in the future...

.
Pirate Wench, I have seen no evidence of this "smarter" that you mention.
~

Pirate Wench - there's been several times, usually after a strong dose of rusty or spob or hula, where people have asked why we can't get reasonable conservatives in here.
.
Exiled/neo strikes me as being a mostly reasonable person. We disagree with him, but he's not batsh*t insane like rusty, and he doesn't descend into saying "Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh!" over and over like spob.
.
So, I'm going to engage him on some things.

And wvng - thanks for those links.