Lieberman-Warner Plan Unveiled 21

Posted by Brad Johnson Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:39:00 GMT

Sens. Lieberman and Warner have unveiled the skeleton of their cap-and-trade legislation, America’s Climate Security Act.


“The bill will specify an annual aggregate tonnage cap, expressed in terms of Co2 equivalence, for each year from 2012 through 2050. The cap that the bill will specify for 2012 will be the 2005 emissions level.” And: 10% below 2005 by 2020, 30% by 2030, 50% by 2030, 70% by 2050.


  • Each year 20% of that year’s National Emission Allowance Account for free to covered entities within the industry sector.
  • In 2012 20% of the NEAA will be allocated to the electric power sector. A portion of that 20% will be free to new entrants to the electric power sector. The allocation will be at 20% from 2012 – 2017, then transition to 0% by 2035.
  • 10% will be allocated to load-serving entities to defray energy-cost impacts on low- and middle-income consumers and to promote demand-side energy efficency, some of it for free to rural electric cooperative facilities.
  • 8% will be allocated to covered entities who have taken pre-enactment action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That 8% will transition to 0% by 2020.
  • Each year 4% will be allocated to state governments, half based on population, half on historical state emissions.
  • Each year 4% will be allocated to US coal mines.
  • Each year 7.5% will be allocated to farmers, foresters, and other landowners to store carbon in soils, crops, and forests.
  • Each year 2.5% will be allocated to the transportation sector.

Allowances for Auction

  • 24% in 2012 will go to auction under the aegis of the Climate Change Credit Corporation; rising to 52% by 2035.

Auction Proceeds

  • 20% for a public-private partnership for power-sector technologies including CCS
  • 20% for public-private partnership for CCS
  • 20% for transportation sector technologies and reducing miles traveled
  • 10% for environmental mitigation
  • 10% for SO2, NOx, mercury emission reduction from coal plants
  • 10% to state and local for low-income community mitigation
  • 10% for international mitigation


CCS regulations and a legal framework for the Federal assumption of liability for geological storage will be proposed by a study group within two years of enactment.

Carbon Market Efficiency Board, Banking

  • Up to 15% of the allowances a covered entity must submit may be comprised of borrowed allowances, with an interest rate set by the Board.
  • Up to 15% of the allowances that a covered entity must submit may be comprised of offset credits.
  • Up to 15% of the allowances that a covered entity must submit may be comprised of allowances purchased on a certified foreign greenhouse gas emissions trading market.
  • the Board may increase the number of emissions credits if the average daily closing price of an emissions credit exceeds the upper end of the range predicted by the CBO prior to the start of the program.
  • The Board may adjust the terms and interest rates of the emissions loans “as needed to avoid significant harm to the economy” and “in the event of more extreme economic circumstances” to raise the cap temporarily provided that subsequent year’s caps are tightened so that cumulative reductions are unchanged.


“The bill will set forth detailed, rigorous requirements for offsets, with the purpose of ensuring that they will represent real, additional, verifiable, and permanent emissions reductions.”

Foreign Tariffs

The President will be authorized to require that importers of GHG-intensive products submit emissions allowances of a value equivalent to that of the allowances that the US system effectively requires of domestic manufacturers, if it is determined that nation has not taken commensurate action to reduce GHG emissions.


Leave a response

  1. Seth Baum Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:32:45 GMT


    “Cap-and-trade = Carbon tax + Corporate welfare” link

    H/T ecological economics blog

    I’m still not very expert on carbon tax vs cap & trade, but I’m still inclined to prefer the tax were it politically feasible. Given political realities, I’ll take whatever we can get.

  2. The Cunctator Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:30:00 GMT

    Mankiw’s claim that “Cap-and-trade = Carbon tax + Corporate welfare” is the type of thing I’d expect from a blogger, not an economist with a Ph.D, even though there is an element of truth to the slogan.

    In particular, that argument holds water to the extent that emissions credits are given away. If the credits are entirely up for auction and if auction-related revenues are directed toward progressive elements, the claim of corporate welfare becomes almost exactly false.

    It also ignores the “cap” part of “cap-and-trade”, which, unlike a carbon tax, guarantees specific emissions reductions.

    It also ignores where the carbon tax revenues go. Advocates for a carbon tax need to specify where the revenues would go if they are to be honest proponents of an alternative to cap-and-trade.

    So, a better equation would be

    “cap-and-trade + free credit allocation = carbon tax + guaranteed emissions reduction targets + corporate welfare”.

  3. stomv Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:46:26 GMT
    It also ignores where the carbon tax revenues go. Advocates for a carbon tax need to specify where the revenues would go if they are to be honest proponents of an alternative to cap-and-trade.

    Why? Why does that particular money need to be earmarked? Even if a dime of federal funds never went into efficiency, subsidizing green energy, public transportation projects, or any number of carbon-reduction activities, a carbon tax would still be effective at reducing carbon emissions.

    Both cap-and-trade and a carbon tax, implemented honestly, would reduce carbon emissions… cap-and-trade by a predictable amount, a carbon tax by an unpredictable amount. What the revenue is spent on could have a carbon-reduction affect [say, subsidizing green energy production or mass transit], a carbon-neutral affect [say, using it to fund education or health care], or a carbon-increasing affect [say, using it to fund new highway projects or further subsidize coal or oil companies]. But to proclaim that carbon tax revenue must be earmarked is completely bogus.

  4. The Cunctator Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:53:46 GMT
    As you said,
    What the revenue is spent on could have a carbon-reduction affect [say, subsidizing green energy production or mass transit], a carbon-neutral affect [say, using it to fund education or health care], or a carbon-increasing affect [say, using it to fund new highway projects or further subsidize coal or oil companies].
  5. Hubbert Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:52:23 GMT

    It’s a peak oil management strategy. We’re going to be emitting less carbon whether we like it or not. We are already past peak oil production. The price is going well beyond $100 for the precious fuel. This is a public opinion management scheme to convince the public the economic pain is self-imposed and therefore somehow more bearable. Perhaps they will be less intent on throwing out the politicians with torch and pitchfork. Due to the one-to-one correspondance between emissions and fuel, it is a direct fuel allocation mechanism. What an incredible new power for politicians, who can now allocate fuel to their friends and deny it to their enemies. What fun the academics will have testing out their economic theories upon the entirety of society. Think of all the neat experiments they can try on us. I suppose the concept of freedom is as radical as it ever way. When the peak oil crunch makes food scarce those crying for the polar bears today will be fighting to barbecue them tomorrow.

  6. Nityanand Mon, 12 May 2008 22:21:12 GMT

    Thanks for creating this blog and providing us such a neat summary of this important bill. This bill should be titled “PLANET’S CLIMATE SECURITY ACT” as it will benefit entire planet and not just America.

    Sooner US Senate & Public approve of this, sooner we have the chance for Climate Change being under control of human beings.

    All the fears of US citizens losing jobs etc due to this bill, are meaningless,as could be seen in IT-Information Technology Sectors, The US companies that have adopted Low Cost IT solutions from India are actually competing better within USA market and offer more jobs within USA.

    We can only hope that better sense will prevail.

  7. [email protected] Sat, 17 May 2008 05:56:47 GMT

    This whole thing is nuts. We’re looking at 9.00/gal USD, and these guys are nailing the lid on the economic of the United States, based on bad science decisions based on a treatise from a guy (Al Gore) who is not a scientist.

    This notion that man can somehow control the climate is ultimate folly. Mother earth is simply tilting her axis as she has done for billions of years.

    Please, get real.

  8. charkins Sat, 24 May 2008 18:29:24 GMT

    32,000 scientists are the latest to debunk the global warming fantasy. This is less a climate issue and much more a political issue. And when politics is involved then you must follow the money trial to learn who the players are. Carbon Tax proposals are the latest gimmick in promoting a massive growth in federal spending and control, thereby placing more power in the hands of our politicians to use for any reason they desire. It is totally untested in its ability to achieve any of the stated goals. Scientists are still haggling over their initial energy limits imposed by the Kyoto Treaty, and we now think we can dictate carbon limits on the US economy??? And we don’t think this will tank our economy to the benefit of the rest of the world ??

    How about a National Energy Independence Act which promotes a massive expansion of nuclear power.  If America produced as big a share of electricity from nuclear power as France does (78%), we would be keeping two billion tons of carbon a year out of the atmosphere.  That is 15% better than the Kyoto Treaty goal and would be a 37% reduction below current emissions.  An added bonus with nuclear is that the plants could be used to produce hydrogen for a hydrogen-powered vehicle system at night when the electricity grid does not need the power.  Now there is a solution that moves us much closer to energy independence and helps with vehicle emission standards at the same time, without mortgaging our economic future to a massive growth in taxes and government, while keeping control out of the politicians hands !!!!!!!
  9. keliann Tue, 27 May 2008 11:09:02 GMT

    Is this the on Newt Gingrich calls ‘the Chinese-Indian full employent act’?

  10. [email protected] Wed, 28 May 2008 13:19:31 GMT

    Rimer,Charkins and Keliann above are entirely correct. Somehow this insanity needs to stop, our congress and environmentalist crazies need to be stopped from their mission to take down the United States of America. Americans have been duped by Al Gore and the Michael Moore movie. All over America public school students are being indoctrinated to believe Americans are greedy horrible usurpers of everything on the planet. Private property is being snatched up all over the country by non-profit “conservancy” groups, using our tax dollars as incentives. Soon there will be no private sector if this keeps up. It’s very sad to see Americans being used like this, freedoms stolen, ability to be productive being undermined. It’s also sad that all we have done to make the world better, more than any other country, is now twisted to make us the villain and the scapegoat. Very sad. Tea Party anyone?

  11. Marsea Thu, 29 May 2008 19:26:17 GMT

    Amen, Charkins! You mirror my opinions completely. Economically, we are “shooting ourselves in the foot” with the Lieberman-Warner bill. I’ve already called my senators urging them to vote against it, as if my voice will even be heard. As far as global warming goes, the global yearly carbon cycle exchange between Earth’s biosphere and atmosphere is about 60 billion tons per year and between our ocean’s and atmosphere about 90 billion tons yearly. What we humans add yearly to the equation is about 7 billion tons. Not a whole heck of a lot. It’s also thought that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will produce an increase in plant growth that will in turn use more CO2 and give off more O2. Man has been using carbon-based fuels for almost as long as we have been on this planet and it seems Mother Nature knows how to handle it.

  12. guido Thu, 29 May 2008 22:20:48 GMT

    How do i address thee?

    1. “Rimer,Charkins and Keliann above are entirely correct. “

    --No not really, they could use some old fashion education (oh, that’s right, even in public schools!)

    —-for $9.00 a gallon to happen, what would the price per barrel need to be…Once you figure it out let me and tell me who see per barrell prices going there…And oh, btw, quote one, just one, market specialist you agrees with you…Do the math, genius.

    --32,000 scientists list?

    Already being been debunked…BUTTTT i will give you this one if you can name ONE nobel prize scientist who says global warming is not happening….seems far, don’t you…Can’t find one? Then you have retract.

    --Full employment act?

    oh, get real,,,India and China have one fourth our per capita emission per ton…Are you saying that other human being in the world cannot strive for our quality of life? But let me try this on you…they are much more impacted by this calamtiy than the US is…Rational human behavior would suggest, that they would be more motivated to find solutions than Americans…Turns out if you look at the technology edge, they consider the US a non-player in developing technology to solve their pollution issues….Hmmm, let’s see here,,,the cost of doing nothing is higher than taking action, and you propose for us to do nothing,,,AND put us behind is business opportunities…Some education in basis economics might help you here.

    —-All over America public school students are being indoctrinated to believe Americans are greedy horrible usurpers of everything on the planet.

    wow, indoctrination, how many pta meetings or school board meetings have you gone to stop such practices; i doubt any and i doubt you know anyone who has…The indoctrination you talk about, is called learning the facts. The school systems i have had the privilege to work with are very, very careful not to expose my children to supersition, myth…or “intelligent design”,,,YEAH, that’s not indoctrination…Put forth one example of indoctrination that is being taught in your public school.

    --Private property is being snatched up all over the country by non-profit “conservancy” groups, using our tax dollars as incentives.

    —-What the hell are you taking about…no less than the constitution prevents a “taking” without compensation…That private property you are referring to, is most likely the the resources we, the citizens, consider the federal government to be keeping for us, as “commons.” For the benefit of us all.

    --Soon there will be no private sector if this keeps up.

    Well, that’s a breath of fresh air,,,there will be less private sector if we, as human beings want to survive. One business opportunity might be this…RELOCATION!!!! By 2100, sea levels will have rise such that no less than 1 billion people must be relocated. Let’s see 1,000,000,000 in approximaely 100 years, that would yield 10, 000,000 per year…Wow,,,wonder how we would do that if we started now!!! Sounds like a private venture opportunity—only one problem,,,where do i move them and who pays?

    —-It’s very sad to see Americans being used like this, freedoms stolen, ability to be productive being undermined. It’s also sad that all we have done to make the world better, more than any other country, is now twisted to make us the villain and the scapegoat. Very sad. Tea Party anyone?

    Well, yes, it is sad, and it is disappointing,,,however i know of no freedoms that have been stolen—except my freedom to breath clean air and my right to not let polluters poison my house, my community, and me… So if the shoe fits,,,it might be time to exercise something called LEADERSHIP. Hopefully, we find one soon…

    in the meantime, you might want to educate yourself. So, let’s start, real slow….”Too much CO2, not good for humanity”...But if you believe Marsea,,,and she’s right, Earth will continue to spin, and hope that someone intelligent emerges.

  13. mellowyellowami Fri, 30 May 2008 09:29:59 GMT

    This bill would kill industry in the USA. Well not only industry but the great way of life we have here. Should be named the Destory America Bill.

  14. Chuck Fri, 30 May 2008 09:31:09 GMT

    To Guido -

    What are you, 10 years old? You certainly don’t have to agree with every post here, but at least open your mind to the possibility that other people have valid opinions. Each person’s opinion, even yours, is based upon what you read, what you hear and what you choose to believe. I’ve found that people who ridicule others are quite often ignorant of the topics they shout about.

    I like hearing opposing arguments because they may reveal facts of which i’m unaware that may influence my opinion or affect my judgment on matters that I feel strongly about. I have even changed my position on issues based on people who carefully articulate their opinions – those which end up making sense to me. But that doesn’t mean they’re any more right than I am.

    From all the differing scientific opinions, it’s quite apparent that no one knows enough about how the climate works to make the kinds of predictions that are being made. Even scientists admit their models are unreliable. One week scientists say it’s warming, a week later a group says there is cooling from the oceans for which the climate modelers didn’t account. A few searches on Google and you’ll see there is certainly no consensus among scientists or us regular folks. Anyone can find enough links to strengthen the position he takes, ignoring the others. But among all the links truth can be found if one is willing to filter through the bias and opinions.

    For instance, Past weather is fixed, and we can see that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that all the years since then have been colder. April 2008 was the coldest in 114 years. This is not opinion, these are facts that we all can look up. That the earth is coming out of an ice age and warming, many people agree. The degree to which man has influenced natural climate cycles, many disagree. In the recorded past, rises in CO2 occurred as a result of temperature rise, not the reverse, with CO2 often trailing temperature by 800 to 1000 years. And although CO2 in the industrial age has continually been on the rise, the years from 1940 to 1970 show a major cooling trend, not a warming trend. A reasonable person will wonder if CO2 is a problem, why didn’t temperature rise for those 30 years years? And why would there be a cooling trend predicted if CO2 is rising so fast now that we need to take drastic action? One has to ask, Is it only man-caused when they temperatures go up and natural climate changes when temperatures go down?;q=scientists+predict+cooling&start=10&sa=N

    But can mankind really stop climate change, and what is the “correct” Earth temperature?

    I won’t respond to all the things you list in your post, but there are a couple of things I’d like you to consider:

    1) Going back to 1901, there is NO scientist who advocated global warming who won any of the Nobel Science awards. Al Gore and the UN Panel got a Nobel Peace Prize, not for science, but for their efforts in educating the public about the issue of global warming. So, while no one can name a Nobel Prize Scientist who denies GW, there isn’t any scientist who promotes it either – or was yours a trick question? Oh, and why doesn’t Al Gore ever attend debates against real scientists? Like this one:

    But here is a link to over a dozen names of some well-respected scientists who do work in the climate field who, although they did not win any Nobel Science Prizes, have come out against Man-Made Global Warming:

    2) The 31,000 scientists are named here: While they are not all climate scientists, they all are scientists who have been trained to use logic and the scientific method in their work. And their opinion is worth more than those of us who are not scientists.

    3) Subversion of “constitutionally protected” private property rights by Environmentalists, and others: One only needs open the newspaper for the war over the 2005 eminent domain ruling to see that you’re not really up on this issue.

    4) Indoctrination of school children: None of our nation’s leaders have kid’s in public schools. There’s a reason for this. Parents who can’t afford private schools have to settle for “public education”. Talk to any 5th grader about the environment and tell me there’s no indoctrination going on in schools. But you agree with the AGW view, so you don’t think it’s indoctrination, you think it’s learning the facts. But, by your own admission, you don’t want them teaching “intelligent design”, so you work to prevent indoctrination of which you don’t approve. I get it. In the UK, teachers aren’t allowed to show Gore’s film unless they first tell the children that it is a propaganda film, and that it contains 11 factual errors (actually there are 33). But our teachers welcome this video into the classroom. Is it any wonder that kids grow up thinking man is bad for the environment? Instead of teaching a balanced view that man and nature do work together and that if it hadn’t been for man’s pioneering and industrial spirit we wouldn’t have the life or the lifestyles that are the envy of the rest of the world?

    5) Lost freedoms: I think maybe you’re ok with losing freedoms. Maybe You don’t think it’s bad to own your own land and not be able to build on it because it might not be environmentally “friendly” as some bureaucrat decides. And you’re probably ok with driving less or not at all, or not having any industry in this country and sending jobs overseas. But there are those of us who believe in capitalism and the benefits it brings to the health and welfare of all people.

    “Now observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”—there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon.” Ayn Rand

    But it doesn’t matter what you or i believe about global warming – the issue of Global Warming is not about the environment:

  15. guido Fri, 30 May 2008 13:58:26 GMT

    Dear Charles,

    LOL, no, i am not ten. Wish i was.

    I decline to rebut your so-called arguments, as they have been rebutted by numerous other people…And more recently, by the most recent published report by DoI.

    i suggest you take some of your own advice and open your mind…The data is in, the danger is real, we now need to focus on a strategy to deal with it.

    However, if you belive the issue is not about the environment, i have some ocean front property, i am sure i am find for you.

    Thanks, you made my day.

  16. American Me Fri, 30 May 2008 17:13:18 GMT

    This bill like many is completely Un-Constitutional. Have any of the Senators even read the Constitution? Why on Earth do they think it is okay to create law to tell me how much carbon I can use? Cap and Trade, that’s a joke in and of itself. Do they think somehow American people are too stupid to know what this will do to the economy? I hope these morons in Senate wake up before the revolution shows up on their doorstep. I for one am disgusted with what is going on in Congress these past two years.

  17. American Me Fri, 30 May 2008 17:16:42 GMT

    Btw, Guido I also assume you have the intellect of a child.

    Well said Charles, Thanks

    -Another lover of liberty

  18. guido Fri, 30 May 2008 18:52:21 GMT

    To Charles:

    oh, please, you’re relying on the Heartland 400 (i think it is down to 300 now..and declining); that was a non-event. BTW – the world’s best and brightest were at the Geophysics confernence then; several thousand as i recollect.

    oh, iBW, t looks you are confusing whether with climate..7 of the past ten years have been the warmest on record. In any event, if this is the best rebuttal you have your basic assessment indicates to me your lack of knowledge about the situation. You are reciting plays out of a very old, downlevel “denier’s handbook”

    To AmericanMe

    What gives you the right to pollute the air we breath? Just as you have no right to pollute the air we breath, the water we drink, and the food we eat…(Which covered by the Clean Air Act and Water – guess those are unconstitional, too?)

    ...The bill has never been assessed by any legal scholar as unconstitutional..nor its predessors…But i’bite – name that part of the Constitution it violates.

    I hope you wake up to the facts. Global warming is happening…No one disputes it now; USPOTUS, the three presidental candidates, various federal departments: DoI, EPA, DoE, etc.

    We must now face the facts that GhG emissions are causing global warming. However, what is your solution to this problem?

    As to my intellect – my iq was analyzed as a child…It was genius level. What’s yours?

  19. Chuck Sat, 31 May 2008 07:09:24 GMT


    I enjoy reading your views. Please continue to post.

    I do agree with you that this bill could be deemed unconstitutional as it could violate the 5th and 9th amendments (the bill of rights). In the same way that our property rights are being subverted by the EPA and such laws as The Endangered Species Act.

    Such laws as the Climate Security Act could be interpreted to prevent business and industry or you from doing even the most basic things with your own land in that it may increase your carbon footprint. Or worse, organizations like the Nature Conservance could take out of service, large tracts of public land that could otherwise be vital to feeding and housing a nation, to prevent the spread of carbon footprints. Many who support this thinking it is a good thing, haven’t yet realized the full impact of such measures.

    The higher costs of the plan will certainly relate to less income, possibly a total loss of income if a job is eliminated. And loss of money is loss of freedom. So an argument could be made on that basis. But the way the Preamble is written, some court could say that this plan is perfectly in keeping with the obligation to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. I disagree, but I lack the faith that the courts would declare this plan unconstitutional.


    I was troubled at this comment that was hurled at you. “what gives yoy the right to pollute the air we breathe”... To receive a personal attack from someone to whom you hadn’t directed any of your comments seems so out of place in an intelligent discussion of issues. But I can tell you from personal experience I’ve found that attacking the individual is a tactic used to discredit the source of a logical argument in attempt to avoid debating the argument on the basis of truth. It’s sad, but open forums like this often attract people who don’t have anything of value to post except their criticism of other commentors.

    But let’s respond, shall we? “what gives yoy the right to pollute the air we breathe”... For that matter what gives any of us the right to breathe (CO2) at all?. All activities of man result in some form of “pollution”, even if it is as simple as cooking dinner or using a computer to post a message. In this all men are equal. But the greater good is served by normal activities and seen as beneficial to all men.

    Much as this may anger ecoists, who think man is bad for the planet, all of us have the right to exist, to breathe, and as a by-product of living, to pollute. Pollution is unavoidable, but can be mitigated. To the extent it is mitigated we live happier, more productive lives and leave the planet no worse off and in many ways improve the earth for our being here. Man can live in harmony with nature. We should never be ashamed that we have developed the most beautiful and desirable country in the world with the highest standard of living that is the envy of other nations. Why else are so many trying to come here?

    The rights of life, personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the “absolute rights” of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” These unalienable rights are so important, they were written into our Declaration of Independence. In exercising our rights, we need to respect others, but we should never let government take them away. The Climate Security Act could undermine three of the above.

    What do you think?

  20. Chuck Sat, 31 May 2008 07:27:42 GMT


    I’m not here to debate you. As i’ve already indicated, you can find as many “sources” to support your position as I can mine. We could fill up this entire blog bantering back and forth without accomplishing a thing.

    I don’t pretend to be an expert or have all the answers. Quite the contrary. But I try to do my homework, articulate my views as best I can and look to others for corroboration or opposition, and enlightment. In my earlier post I merely asked you to consider that others may have valid opinions. None of us here may be “right”. But that’s not the point, is it? We’re here to share. I’m not here to force my “correct” view upon anyone. And I hope you’re not. The fun is in the discovery of yet an unheard viewpoint. At least for me it is.

    When I said that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that the last 10 years since have been colder, I am, of course, referring to The UN World Meteorological Organization reporting that global temperatures have not risen since 1998. My point being that climate scientists are predicting a natural cooling period which doesn’t account for the correlation of increased CO2 during this same decade. But I AM aware of the stats to which you refer indicating that each of the last nine (not 7) years has earned a spot in the rankings of the 25 warmest years on record (since 1900). It should be noted that only the non-consecutive years 2006 and 1998 are listed in NASA GISS’ 10 warmest years on record since 1900, in this order: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.

    It’s really all a matter of when we start the chart, and how many years we include in the warmest group. If we extend the graph to include the renaissance period, our current temperatures will appear to have risen insignificantly, an increase that is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years, (i.e.; less than 1 degree).

    And, yet, I believe that most people agree that we may be in a period of general global warming. I do, too. But “man-made” (CO2) GW is VERY much in dispute. It is no surprise that all government agencies and candidates support AGW. To say that no one disputes it by citing only those whose paymaster is the government, in whose interest it is to endorse it, is to overlook hundreds of reports by other “independent” respected climate scientists (whose names I’ve linked to earlier) and thousands of other professionals whose opinions are just as valid and should be taken as seriously as yours or mine. Anyone who feels threatened by a request to at least consider the merit of these various (and sometimes opposing) views, should take their rantings to any of a number of AGW sites that support his view. If it’s the arguing and demeaning that drives him, then he should visit Monty Python’s Argument Clinic. That’s all that needs to be said about this.


    I apologize for what is likely the futile attempt to explain myself. I thought this was a place to place our comments, a place to share our thoughts and not be condemned for doing so. I enjoy reading what you have to say and how you feel about this Lieberman-Warner Plan.

    I personally think this plan is a dangerous, socialist plan that will deter America from rebounding from this recession by increasing costs and chasing business and jobs away from the US. The big companies who can afford to trade carbon credits and pass the costs on to consumers, it’s the mom and pop businesses who can’t. All this under the guise of helping the environment based on unproven (politicized) science. Worse, the money changing hands will not go to environmental projects, just to those trading and to the government’s general funds. The hope is that in doing this shell game, that companies will, in fact, actually reduce their carbon output. But their are much better ways to achieve this.


    No matter your position on GW, I think we can all agree that there’s certainly no harm in voluntarily doing more to curb emissions and being good stewards of the planet. I have great faith that we are living in a very opportune time and that man’s pioneering spirit will, in fact, overcome the oil/energy problems we face without de-industrializing our nation or taking away our shared “american dream” (of which the automobile is a viable part). We’re seeing new hybrids coming out. We’ve built electric cars 100 years ago and more recently the EV1 to meet the California Zero Emissions initiative. We can do it. I believe this technology will become more available and affordable.

    In the meantime, let’s talk about alternate solutions to the Lieberman-Warner Plan. Instead of Carbon Taxes, what if we do this:

    1) Support giving tax credits to companies that cut carbon emissions as an incentive to cut pollution. 2) Encourage businesses to voluntarily cut pollution and give them financial incentives to do this but, if necessary, require them to do so. 3) Give tax credits to homeowners and builders who incorporate alternative energy systems in their homes, like solar, wind, and geothermal energy. 4) Support offering tax credits for people who turn in older, high-polluting cars. 5) favor property tax credits to private landowners who agree not to develop their land and agree not to sell it to developers 6) Our current dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic prosperity by making us vulnerable to dangerous dictatorships. We should build more oil refineries in America to lower the cost of gas and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment, we should drill for oil off America’s coasts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nuclear should also be considered an option.

    Tax credits have been proven to work because they’re available to everyone who wants to be a part of the process – voluntarily.

    I can’t take credit for this list. Oh I’ve thought of one or two of them, but this list is a result of polls taken which show the majority view of Americans on enviromental and energy issues:

    Solutions offered… let me know what you think.

  21. LUVGAMES/YAHOO.COM Fri, 15 May 2009 22:47:49 GMT