See Related Bills:
See Bills on the Same Subject:
Administrative procedure, Advice and consent of the Senate, Air pollution, Air pollution control, Alternative energy sources, Biomass energy, Business, Carbon cycle, Carbon dioxide, Climate change, Climatic changes, Coal, Cogeneration of electric power and heat, Congress, Congressional delegations, Congressional reporting requirements, Cost effectiveness, Developing countries, Economic impact statements, Economic policy, Electric power plants, Emissions trading, Energy, Energy conservation, Energy consumption, Energy efficiency, Environmental assessment, Environmental law enforcement, Environmental monitoring, Environmental protection, Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental research, Environmental technology, Executive departments, Executive reorganization, Finance, Fluorocarbons, Foreign policy, Fuel cells, Gasoline, Geology, Geothermal resources, Government information, Government publicity, Government vehicles, Independent regulatory commissions, Industrial pollution, Information disclosure (Securities law), International affairs, International environmental cooperation, Investors, Judicial review, Law, Marine resources, Methane, Motor vehicle pollution control, Negotiations, Nitrogen oxides, Public contracts, Science policy, Securities and Exchange Commission, Securities regulation, Senate, Solar energy, Technological innovations, Technology, Technology assessment, Tidal power, Trade, Treaties, United Nations, Wind power (more subjects ↓)
See Bills in the Same Budget Category:
N/A
Visitor Comments
IVANWAITE
have sent e-mail message to Missouri Senators and 5th District Repr requesting support of SB309, Boxer, Jeffords, et. al.
Rudy Stefenel
I support S.309 to keep global warming in check even though this bill does not go far enough. There has not been been a better bill that I know of so far. It is best to pass this bill and have it replaced later than to wait for a better bill.
Rudy Stefenel
120 Dixon Landing Road #117
Milpitas, CA 95035
408-263-5332
rudystefenel@yahoo.com
Sharper
Where is the list of costs associated with this bill? This bill appears to accomplish nothing substantial, while at the same time costing Americans Billions in new regulation compliance and decreased economic efficiency.
Kill the Economy
Which is exactly what this will do as all the factories will be shipped to China or India where they do not have to do jack under Kyoto.
Scott from Modesto
Again and again, the anti-enviros whine, but their nonsense doesn't change the facts. Pollution controls lead to improved efficiency and help the economy, but without government regulation that levels the playing field, individual companies can't afford to take the first step.
DM
What I always find amazing is how short-sighted people are. Yes, cleaning things up is expensive.
If we had done it right from the beginning this wouldn't even be an issue.
My other gripe is that people are worried the "now" of the economy. If the world begins to die out, who cares about the next iPod?
Tim
@scott: when has a control forced upon the marketplace by a government ever increased efficiency and helped the economy? Controls on emissions costs money and it's money that I don't want to pay when scientists still can't tell me with absolute certainty that humans are causing global warming and they definitely can't tell me the extent to which the globe will be effected. 10 years ago they projected major cities being inundated in 30-40 years and now and now that projection is at the century mark. Very few of these projections take into account the fact that technology is still advancing at an exponential rate and what can be done about global warming today might be nothing when compared to what can be done in 50 years.
This legislation is crap. Focus on immigration reform and healthcare instead of spending time looking good for Al Gore.
Norrin
This bill needs to do even more. And for anyone who tries to through economics at this, a new government agency would be made to patrol this, and new jobs could be created to clean up carbon as well as other emissions through equipment maintenance. This would IMPROVE the economy.
And 2nd, if our kids are all dead who cares how the economy is now.
This should be passed and it will be passed now, or in 2008, pick when.
matthew
How many dead kids? Certainly not "all" of them. Care to guess how many? Care to quantify the costs?
BZ
This bill is supposed "to reduce by calendar year 2050 the aggregate net level of global warming pollution emissions of the United States to a level that is 80 percent below the aggregate net level of global warming pollution emissions for calendar year 1990"
That's what the bill says, and I think we should include this in the Detailed Summary. Isn't the main point of this bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050?
Agree with Rudy
I agree with Rudy and support S.309 to keep global warming in check even though this bill does not go far enough. There has not been a better bill thus far. It's best to pass this bill now and replace it later than to wait for perfection. As for the economics of this? It will create job growth in the right areas and force manufacturers in the US to 'get it right'. Our fuel efficiency on vehicles for example is pathetic when compared to supposedly inferior nations.