By Overwhelming Margins, Senate Accepts Conservative Lies About A Green Economy
By Overwhelming Margins, Senate Accepts Conservative Lies About A Green Economy
Ever since President Obama introduced a budget that included his cap-and-trade plan to invest in a green economy and make work pay instead of pollution, conservatives have falsely attacked it as a $3100 light-switch tax, despite their lack of an alternative plan. On Tuesday, the Senate bowed to the barrage of propaganda and passed two amendments to the budget that imply any move to clean energy is a risky tax on consumers. On Wednesday, the Senate explicitly preserved the filibuster for green economy legislation (67-31 vote), even if “the Senate finds that public health, the economy and national security of the United States are jeopardized by inaction on global warming” (42-56):
SUPPORTING THE FALSE CHOICE OF ECONOMY V. ENVIRONMENT
Amendment No. 749, introduced by Sen. Boxer (D-CA): Requires that green economy legislation does not “increase electricity or gasoline prices or increase the overall energy burden on consumers, through the use of revenues and policies provided in such legislation.”
Passed 54-43; Bingaman (D-NM) and Byrd (D-WV) joined every Republican in voting against; Gillibrand (D-NY) and Kennedy (D-MA) not voting.
Amendment No. 731, Sen. Thune (R-SD): Requires that green economy legislation does not “increase electricity or gasoline prices.”
Passed 89-8: Bingaman, Cardin (D-MD), Corker (R-TN), Durbin (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Menendez (D-NJ), Udall (D-NM) and Whitehouse (D-RI) voted against, Gillibrand and Kennedy not voting.
PRESERVING GREEN ECONOMY FILIBUSTER
Amendment No. 869, Sens. Whitehouse (D-RI) and Boxer: Allows non-filibusterable budget reconciliation for green economy legislation, if “the Senate finds that public health, the economy and national security of the United States are jeopardized by inaction on global warming.”
Rejected 42-56: Begich (D-AK), Byrd, Cantwell (D-WA), Dorgan (D-ND), Feingold (D-WI), Hagan (D-NC), Landrieu (D-LA), Levin (D-MI), Lincoln (D-AR), McCaskill (D-MO), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-NE), Rockefeller (D-WV), Stabenow (D-MI), Webb (D-VA) joined every Republican in voting against, Kennedy not voting.
Amendment No. 735, Sen. Johanns (R-NE): Prohibits the use of reconciliation in the Senate for green economy legislation.
Passed 67-31: Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Begich, Bennet (D-CO), Bingaman, Byrd, Cantwell, Casey (D-PA), Conrad (D-ND), Dorgan, Feingold, Hagan, Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu, Levin, Lincoln, McCaskill, Murray, Nelson, Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Stabenow, Tester (D-MT), Warner (D-VA), Webb joined every Republican in voting for, Kennedy not voting.
The budget language affected by these amendments calls for green economy legislation that “would invest in clean energy technology initiatives, decrease greenhouse gas emissions, or help families, workers, communities, and businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy.”
Of course that legislation will affect electricity and gasoline prices in some way — any plan to end our pollution Ponzi scheme will. There’s no way to write energy legislation that guarantees prices don’t go up, just as there’s no way to write legislation that guarantees prices don’t go down. However, thanks to President Bush, we do know what happens without clean energy policies — electricity and gasoline prices skyrocket, polluters profit, pollution rises, and the economy tanks. And we also know that the sun, the wind, and efficiency are free. Conservatives want to maintain the Bush-Cheney policy of letting oil and coal companies write our laws, demolish our economy, and ruin our planet. Unfortunately, it seems there are few in the Senate who are able or willing to stand up against them.
We need a plan for a green economy, not political gimmicks without answers.
This is good for Republicans, since it helps them achieve their goal of destroying the planet. And it’s good for Democrats, since it helps them achieve their goal of pretending to try to avoid the destruction of the planet while ensuring that, in practice, the planet is destroyed. And Senators Johanns was born in 1950, so he’ll almost surely be dead by 2050 (along with countless residents of flood-prone areas of the developing world) so it's basically all good.
7 Responses to “By Overwhelming Margins, Senate Accepts Conservative Lies About A Green Economy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
So lawmakers decided not to act on a ‘green economy’ budget. Makes sense to me based on the following logic;
A green economy NOW(!) is supported mostly by the belief in climate change, when climate change is still a topic of rigorous scientific debate,
A green economy is highly expensive and right now the country is ill equipped financially to handle it,
A green economy requires advanced technology that is not yet feasible on a large scale,
A green economy right now cannot dependably handle the energy demand of our country,
And a green economy demands investment from private citizens to upgrade from their current appliances.
There are too many drawbacks based on the information we have today.
Woops. Maybe I need to reevaluate based on the lessons President Bush taught us. After all, we now know what happens without clean energy policies — “electricity and gasoline prices skyrocket, polluters profit, pollution rises, and the economy tanks.”
So, the economy tanked because Bush did not pass a green budget. And if the economy tanked, taking corporate and business profits with it, how exactly did polluters profit? I am a little confused.
It really had nothing to do with 1) declining lending standards, 2) Federal Reserve interest rate policies, 3) excessive leverage, or 4) increased household debt?
I can’t believe I missed that. I guess I was just busy objectively drawing conclusions based on the breadth of information available to me, rather than making politically motivated charges that have little basis in reality.
We need an objective and honest search for how best to arrive at a green economy (eventually, and for national security reasons), not ideologically based flippant statements without substance.
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 pmHow embarrassing. I forgot to provide a link to the source for my reasons the economy tanked.
Enjoy!
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:36 pmI suppose they are laying the groundwork for a system of subsidies which ensure that current gasoline producers will continue to rake in record profits even if their product becomes unpopular.
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:41 pmIf we had a system of subsidies that held the cost of wind power at some constant fraction of the cost of the least expensive fossil fuel for electricity, then we would convert as quickly as possible without raising prices. Subsidies for lithium mining and plug-in hybrids would similarly pass the restriction of not raising gasoline prices (people would be using a lot less gasoline and a lot more subsidized wind.)
Subsidies like that would transition faster than just a cap-and-trade system, well, depending on the cap chosen, of course.
I have a feeling the Senate might change its mind about the filibuster for budget reconciliation after the conference report from their meeting with the House on whatever they end up passing.
The subsidies for wind and lithium will be a lot less than the cost of the excess storms they will prevent, depending on which model you use to extrapolate storm and flood damage. The cost of insurance using new NOAA data should bring market forces to bear.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 amIssues in Focus from this year’s Annual Energy Outlook is more interesting than usual.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:17 amNfilheim asks:
“And if the economy tanked, taking corporate and business profits with it, how exactly did polluters profit? I am a little confused.”
How did polluters profit? Well, if you consider ExxonMobil a polluter, then that polluter profited by earning the largest corporate profit in the history of the world from 2007-2008.
Sure, profits are down right now with the economic slowdown. But they’ll be up again soon, especially if Congress does not take action to increase an alternative energy supply. And if ExxonMobil and the other polluters have their way, Congress will do virtually nothing again, insuring more huge profits into the endless future.
Nfilheim, why do you think ExxonMobil is spending tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars on saturation ad campaigns (using a Hillary Clinton look-alike spokesperson) designed to thwart climate-change legislation? Those ads are on immediately after EVERY network news program on EVERY station (including public TV).
Of course, it would be nice if ExxonMobil used just a FRACTION of that ad campaign budget on exploration, or even increased research into renewables, but that isn’t what they want now.
What they want is to thwart this legislation, at all costs. That’s their ticket to the gravy train of the future–the Status Quo.
That’s what we should be fighting against.
April 4th, 2009 at 1:19 am——————————————————————————–
So how mhch has the globe warmed? … or how much has the creek risen in Hooterville?
Group ‘A’ says the creek is rising and the little town of Hooterville must spend half of its much needed funds to correct before a huge tragic flood consumes all (taking money from schools, roads and hospitals)
Group ‘B’ says “Now hang on. How do we know the creek is rising?”
“We just know it,” says group ‘A’ “and we’ll do a study to prove it.”
Group ‘A’ completed their 100 year study and found out that the creek ‘may’ (or may not) have increased 1/2 inch in 100 years.
When group ‘B’ pointed out a math error and the creek may have lowered in 100 years group ‘A’ fell silent for a while before announcing that the creek instead was undergoing “creek change” (which conveniently can’t actually be measured) From then on the term “creek change” replaced the term “creek rising” as a reason to continue practicing their insane ‘Save The Creek’ religion.
Have so many folks just gone nuts? A recent study by the UN and environmentalist-global-warming-fanatics showed the earth “may” have increased 1/2 degree in 100 years. There own study proved that there has been NO global warming. Again… how can so many have fallen for this obvious farce?
April 4th, 2009 at 9:47 pm