1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

House passes global warming bill

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Batman, Jun 27, 2009.

  1. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    Mods: Feel free to move this to the politics board. Figured it was more newsy.

    House passes the so-called "Cap and Trade" bill aimed at curbing global warming. The last amendments -- 300 pages worth -- came in at 3 a.m. today and the vote was tonight. So much for a thorough review and debate.
    And does anyone think this is really a good idea right now? I know all about both sides of the global warming debate, but at this point in time RIGHT NOW, when unemployment is approaching 10 percent and lots of people are hanging by a thread financially, why is our government trying to ram through legislation that everyone acknowledges will drive up the cost of living?

  2. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Sending all our jobs and industries to other countries while adding $3,000 annually to folks' utility bills is always a good idea to those seeking to completely wreck the country.

    To those of us with brains? Not so much.
  3. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I figure if they had to twist arms in the House, there is no way it is getting through the Senate.
  4. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    One can only hope.
  5. FishHack76

    FishHack76 Active Member

    Where exactly is this so-called $3,000 annual fee?

    "In addition, the memo argues that advocates need to be more willing to use numbers to combat claims from some Republicans that cap-and-trade legislation will dramatically increase prices on consumers."

    We'll see if what you claim actually happens, but it seems like more "OBAMUH IS A MUH-SLIM!" trickery to me ...

    So when exactly can we start doing what we should have done 20 or 30 years ago? A year from now? Two years from now? Three? Just let us all know. Change is difficult, but it hasn't to be done sometimes. It's not always at the ideal time. Sometimes, there's not an ideal time for something.
    The same thing with more fuel-efficient cars? We've had the technology to do that for decades, and what did the automakers do? Sit on their hands ...

    The fact is we have a finite amount of oil and coal in this earth. The fact is the less we use oil and gas, the less money for most of the Middle East, which is fine by me.

    My point is: At least someone is trying to do something about it. It may not be the perfect bill. We're always concerned in this country about what the best route is when sometimes we need to concentrate on what is a better option. Continuing to stick with the same old, same old is not the better option.

    It's the same thing with health care or the credit card industry. At least someone is trying to fix it. What was done in the previous years on those matters?
  6. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    If the economy's good, we daren't fuck with it. If the economy's bad, we can't make any further impositions. There's NEVER a good time, according to the side that doesn't want this stuff done.
  7. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Cow farts still legal though.
  8. Tony, the rest of the developed world absolutely cannot believe the way we treat the environment in the United States. It astonishes them.

    Then again, maybe they aren't aware of the airtight research of noted climatologists Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter.
  9. mb

    mb Active Member

    My own damn opinion:

    -- About time we do something.
    -- Bullshit the way it was done.
  10. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    There was a report in some Chinese newspaper the other day that the government was going to deny permission for the purchase of Hummer, on environmental grounds. The government denied it, but I'm pretty sure it was a state newspaper, so draw your own conclusions.

    That that would even be a consideration has to be telling, doesn't it?
  11. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    The waters of the Potomac could be lapping around the ankles of the Representatives at their desks and the only significant action they'd take on this issue is to vote to move the capital to Topeka.
    This legislation is designed to make it LOOK like Congress is doing something, while doing as little as possible.
    That's too much for the Senate, whose goal is to do nothing and hope this whole "life on earth" thing blows over. Too controversial.
  12. Ashy Larry

    Ashy Larry Active Member

    Are you including China?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page