Do you support “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007?”?
ByS. 2191 was introduced Oct. 18th by Senators Lieberman and Warner, who are Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection.
A key supporter of the bill, Environmental Defense, issued a statement saying that the bill would require that covered sectors, about 80% of the U.S. economy, reduce emissions by 15% below 2005 levels in 2020, a “strong target” that they say “helps put the U.S. on the path to much deeper reductions by the middle of the century.”
The bill also has support from the National Wildlife Federation, Exelon Corporation, PGE Corp; Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies.
http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/acsabill.pdf
Editor's Picks-
Please Help me! These quick biology questions!!?Do you need a state ID to get a junior fishing license in WI?What do you think of my book plot?Why are members of the Global Warming religion trying to downplay the gravity of the lies recentl ...Who is more dangerous, Taliban or Americans who dumped 75 million liters of poisonous chemical Ag ...Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
4 Comments
December 26th, 2010 at 8:02 am
No. Absolutely NOT. This bill is just another attempt to grab more power and money for non-existant ’causes’ to cure non-existant problems.
Here is truth about global warming:
Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth’s mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a ‘mini ice age’, so is
becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat ‘conveyor’ which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.
It’s been happening for millions of years.
The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.
As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to ‘predict’ chaotic systems such as weather.
Global warming/cooling, AKA ‘climate change’:
Humans did not cause it.
Humans cannot stop it.
December 26th, 2010 at 8:24 am
Yeah I support the bill. I wish it had a more aggressive target than just 15% below 2005 levels, but to do that by 2020 is a good start. Definitely a big step in the right direction.
December 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
As the US economy is so large it must show Leadership to the rest of the world on Climate change.As they consume nearly 50% of all consumables and are less than 10% of the total worlds population, surely in your hearts you know you are lieing to yourselves, when you say others are trying to cheat you, the only ones who cheated you are the Rich in your own country who would exploit you just as much as they would the third world.
December 26th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Of course not. The United States has been a leader in reducing emissions. Those reductions in emissions have been easily achieved by closing U.S. factories, laying off U.S. workers, building factories in China, and importing goods from China. Therefore, a bill to reduce U.S. emissions is really a bill to export U.S. emissions to China. Because of the relatively lax environmental laws in China, the net effect of the bill would predictably be to increase total global emissions. Thus, the bill appeals only to those whose focus is limited to the “reduce emissions by 15%” sound bite but who completely miss the big picture of increased harm to the environment on a global scale and increased harm to the U.S. economy.