I was watching C-Span. Steny Hoyer gave an astounding speech. Boehner couldn't come close, and he knew it, so he basically just read the phone book.

I don't think so. Two of the environmentalist "no" votes were Kucinich and DeFazio. I am not sure who the third one is yet, but I really doubt it's Salazar.

I am not the expert on this, but from what I've read, the experts generally agree that a carbon tax makes the most sense. The problem is that politically, it's a dead letter in the U.S. Congress. Cap-and-trade is thought to be less expensive for the economy as a whole than caps without trading.

[quote]Here's a special bottle of Veuve Clicquot, a vintage Brut to highlight the Brute force within a velvet voice that is Madame Speaker Pelosi, our leader in the House.[/quote]

Well, damn, I know very little about your politics but I applaud your choice of champagne.  Just gave a bottle exactly as you describe as a gift to a client at the close of difficult transaction.

That's guaranteed, because we can't do this with budget reconciliation. We will lose some Ds, and we all know how we get Rs--more corporate giveaways.

A friend e-mailed me with a pretty good argument for the bill anyway:

Nonetheless, while acknowledging its numerous faults, I remain supportive of the bill.  First, I think that there are some helpful measures within it that have gone underreported such as higher appliance standards, better building codes, and the establishment of a smart grid.  Second, while a 20% renewable standard by 2020 means little for Iowa, it is significant progress for states like Kentucky who use next to no renewable energy.  Third, I feel it is important that we pass some sort of climate legislation prior to Copenhagen in December so that the administration has a starting point for international negotiations, especially with China and India.  Third, I feel that it is important to officially lay out reductions goals in order to establish accountability for future efforts.  Fourth, I feel that this represents a first step in the right direction, even if it is a small one.  If trends continue, in the coming years the effects of climate change will become even more apparent.  Furthermore, there is a generational divide on this issue, and as a different political generation takes the reigns there is a greater chance that this legislation will be strengthened.  Finally, I think there is value in writing to legislators regarding this legislation.  The fact that they do not hear enough from their constituents on the issue of climate change makes it very easy for them not to make the difficult decisions needed to resolve the problem.

I understand that point of view.

I'm sure your ass still hurts from losing in November, though.

No, our elected officials are not ignoring us all.  They are ignoring you.  In this instance, they're accommodating my desires.

OK, you have scared us with the "you now have to pay more" talk...now proove it will happen.  If they crank the price up more, less gets used and they make less money OR people start looking into ways to make thier own elec and the power companies loose that way too.

You sound like someone pitching a fit because things will not stay the way you are comfortable with.

You mean we can save money by just dying? Yes, then let's just do what the GOP wants and "Drill, Baby, Drill!" Ultimately we'll die, baby, die from the climate crisis. But hey, at least the human race will go out with a bang!

I appreciate your mathematical calculations.  Your ability to add and subtract are quite impressive.  However, if one were to truly examine the CBO numbers, it is fairly clear the the immediate cost per household is considerably higher than the "Net Cost per Household" figure you used as your baseline.

As stated in the CBO report, "Reducing emissions to the level required by the cap would be accomplished mainly by stemming demand for carbon-based energy by increasing its price.  Those higher prices, in turn, would reduce households' purchasing power."

"According to CBO's estimates, the gross cost of complying with the GHG capand-trade program delineated in H.R. 2454 would be about $110 billion in 2020(measured in terms of 2010 levels of consumption and income), or about $890
per household..."

Too many assumptions and speculations have to be made to reach that final estimate of $175.00 net cost per household.

More importantly, if one were to read HR 2454, one would realize that the supposed desired outcome of cleaner energy sources and reduced carbon emissions will not be accomplished through this program.

Unfortunately, Cap and Trade has become another example of partisan politics.  The passing of this bill was more about providing the $645,000,000,000 in revenues Obama budgeted to come from Cap and Trade before the bill had even een presented to the house!