The War Over Waxman-Markey
Pass a flawed climate bill now, or wait for a better one? Environmentalists duke it out.
A long-awaited vote on the Waxman-Markey climate bill, expected this week or early next month, has environmentalists teetering at the edge of existential crisis. Some believe the bill is so deeply flawed it might actually make matters worse; disillusionment with the bill is causing fierce recriminations within the environmental movement and has led to a knockdown, drag-out fight within the Sierra Club.
“This situation represents much more than just a normal legislative fight,” says former Sierra Club president Larry Fahn, who as a current board member has argued that the bill has been watered down to the point of being unsalvageable. “It’s about the core of what we’re now fighting for, and who we are.”
-
Could Cap and Trade Cause Another Market Meltdown?
Wall Street wants to open up a massive carbon derivatives market. Here we go again.
-
Waxman-Markey: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The devil's in the details of the new climate bill.
-
Earth to Washington
What will it take for DC to wake up to global warming?
The split encompasses more than predictable ideological divides. Debate over the relative merits of a carbon tax versus this bill's cap-and-trade model has mostly given way to concerns about whether the legislation, sponsored by representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), lines the pockets of polluters with little to show for it. The most it would cut carbon emissions by 2020 is 17 percent below 1990 levels, nowhere near the 25 to 40 percent reduction sought by scientists and international climate negotiators. The Sierra Club has withheld its endorsement in hopes of improving the bill before a final vote—it wants to prevent polluters from receiving tradable emissions permits for free, preserve the EPA’s authority to independently regulate carbon, and better fund energy efficiency and clean energy—but Fahn and other environmentalists are skeptical that lawmakers will listen. “From my perspective,” he says, “the prospects of strengthening it to where we’d want to support the ultimate version are growing slim.”
Many environmentalists blame Waxman-Markey’s flaws on the United States Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP), a coalition of industry and moderate environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council that, during the last years of the Bush administration, quietly hammered out what has become the bill’s framework. Sierra Club board member M.K. Dorsey, a professor of global environmental policy at Dartmouth, calls the environmentalists in US-CAP “well-meaning liberals who do not pay enough attention to political economy.” He adds: “They got out-maneuvered, they got hoodwinked, because they were in over their head.”
US-CAP’s approach hasn’t shifted along with the political climate in Washington, says Michelle Chan, a program director with Friends of the Earth (FoE), a left-of-center environmental group. Given that US-CAP’s environmental members “signed a deal in blood” with companies such as Shell and Duke Energy before the election, “the new politics of Obama never played out in this scenario,” she says. “So the deal doesn't move the ball forward now. We're stuck.”
Other enviros disagree. “I absolutely do not know what people are smoking when they argue that the political climate is different now,” counters Manik Roy, vice president for federal government outreach at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a founding member of US-CAP. “We have huge parts of this country that generate electricity from coal, and that are very dependent on manufacturing—none of that has changed.” Nor has the American public’s willingness to overcome those interests, he adds. “Poll after poll is showing that we don’t have a critical mass in this country who are concerned about the urgency of climate change. Until that changes, I think this bill is truly the best we can get in this economic environment.”
Hoping to underscore public support for a stronger bill, the Sierra Club has unleashed what may be the largest grassroots organizing effort in its history. In the run-up to next week’s vote the club and other groups are spending $5 million on television ads, phone banking, and activating their networks in key congressional districts. MoveOn.org recently began blasting similar messages to its 3.2 million members. “I think progressives are starting to wake up to this bill,” says FoE’s director of domestic policy, Erich Pica. “Is it in time? I don’t know.”
“On the big issues, I don’t see the bill getting strengthened on the environmental front,” says Roy of the Pew Center. FoE’s Pica agrees: “The cosponsors are very aware of the deals that they have struck. US-CAP is a very fragile entity, and so they want to do everything they can to make sure that that entity is able to back them up as this goes forward. So amendments like reinstating the Clean Air Act, or amendments that strengthen the Renewable Energy Standard, or amendments that get rid of offsets, or amendments that increase auctions—all those have the real potential of splintering or fracturing the US-CAP group.”
But on the other side, amendments that further weaken the bill are being seriously discussed—a major rub for environmentalists. Some House Democrats want to increase the role of agricultural carbon offsets, weaken standards for biofuels, and further raise the bill’s cap on carbon emissions. (Most House Republicans aren't factors in the negotiations because they're expected to vote against the bill.) That’s left some enviros wishing that other liberal lawmakers had sponsored a stronger bill to pull Waxman-Markey to the left. “That would have been the way,” Chan says, “but nobody’s really stepped up.”
Still, many environmentalists reserve their greatest frustration for Obama, who spoke out in favor of auctioning off pollution permits during his campaign—a major selling point with progressives—but is now thought likely to sign whatever bill crosses his desk. “Those who want to see something done are essentially going into this fight with their heaviest hitter sitting down, getting a massage,” Pica says. He speculates that Obama is deferring to Congress on the climate to save his political capital for a health care fight.
Given that almost all environmental groups agree that Waxman-Markey is far from ideal, the ultimate question is whether passing an imperfect bill now is better than holding out for a better one later. Those who advocate for an incremental approach point out that the US needs to bring something to the table in the next round of international climate talks in Copenhagen this December. On the other hand, Pica argues that improving massive bills like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act took decades, “and by that time we will have carbon-loaded the atmosphere to such a degree that it may not be worth improving anymore.”
Fahn believes the Sierra Club, which often sticks in the middle on these kinds of questions for fear of alienating supporters, needs to get back to the kind of politically difficult but principled stand that helped it save the Grand Canyon in the 1960s. “We need to be bold and strong leaders and not be the ones to work a compromise,” Fahn says. “The Sierra Club should be leading the fight for the best way to save the planet.”
For a look at the good, the bad, and the ugly points of the Waxman-Markey bill, go here.
Page 1 of 1 
Waxman-Markey Fatally Flawed
The strongest part of the draft bill was the Renewable Electricity Standards-- and they were gutted. Waxman-Markey's 2 billion tons of difficult-to-verify offsets overwhelm the cap: No U.S. emissions reductions would be required for decades. Now the Ag Committee is holding out for weakening of standards and oversight on offsets. When does this bill get bad enough that environmentalists just say "no"? Glad to read that the Sierra Club isn't swallowing this.
There is a simple, fair, transparent way to price carbon: it's called a revenue-neutral carbon tax. There are even a few Republicans who like the idea. See http://www.carbontax.org.
There is no sense fooling
There is no sense fooling ourselves. Mankind will polute his home as long as there is 1/2 a penny to be made in the process. It is part of our greed-ridden nature.
While some people are evolving beyond this, such are generally targeted and oppressd as "paranoid", "anti-social", "un-patriotic" and/or enemy's-of-the-state. The cost of doing the right thing is our society is very high. It is first the actual cost of the activity (or avoiding the activity) and next, it is the cost of being blamed and ridiculed.
You are correct that this
You are correct that this bill & the CO2 emissions trade will benefit the greedy. That will be Mr. Gore & his friends who are already set up with the trading exchange to pay the non emitters for unused credit & quaduple the price to the emitters to purchase the unused credits. The way to stop the boondoogle is to give the credits equally to all emitters but not allow the selling or trading of non used credits. If there is no profit from the trading the Gore group will soon lose interest in the plan.
Same as it ever was
It is absolutely clear that no one in Congress or in the Executive Branch is actually concerned with confronting global warming. Their only concern is the appearance of doing something, and this bill, in any form, will serve that purpose.
When Waxman-Markey fails to reign in carbon emissions, today's key players will all say they tried, and then blame someone else for their failure. We won't see serious legislation confronting global warming until Manhattan is under water and Aspen has no snow.
I've never been to
I've never been to Manhattan, but I thought a sizeable part of its land mass is filled in wetland or harbor.
And I don't think Aspen has seen snow for a few weeks.
I guess that's why the Waxman-Markey bill is so serious. Seriously flawed. This bill needs to die a quiet death. Anything Waxman proposes should die a quiet death.
Dave Brown... paranoid? I'm
Dave Brown... paranoid?
I'm sorry to inform you sir, but no amount of 'carbon-taxing' will prevent the earth from changing her shape and form...
I can't believe the man of today, is actually dumber then the man of yesteryear...
Even a third grade textbook tells ya that c02 is required for trees to produce oxygen... if you're worried about what's being pumped into the world... why not look over in Somalia or the likes where countries dump their toxic waste. YUCK!
One factual correction. The
One factual correction. The legislation does not seek to lower CO2 emissions relative to 1990 levels, which is the base that scientists have been working from and which ALL environmental groups supported in 2007 and 2008. One critical piece of the US Cap compromise was to move the base level to 2005, rather a big difference. So Waxman Markey, if passed in its current form, would lower emissions 17% from 2005 levels. I believe that this sleight of hand was quite intentional, and confusion over the targets among quite informed analysts is very common. I have had many environmentalists and writers assert that the target is based on 1990. Unfortunately, this is quite clear in the committee summary of the legislation.
facts on emission cuts
You are correct that the cap on emissions in the original draft of W/M cuts emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels (the latest draft waters that down to 15 percent). But in the section of the piece you reference, I'm talking about the cap plus other measures in the bill such as offsets. Together, all that stuff would reduce emissions by 17 percent below 1990 levels. For a good analysis of the numbers, check this out:
http://www.wri.org/publication/usclimatetargets
More like A Fistful of Dollars
Looking carefully at this bill, it seems industrial polluters will score a major victory if this stinker gets passed.
It guts the Clean Air Act. It hands out 50% of its emission permits FOR FREE. By 2020, only a 4% reduction. No thanks, this bill stinks.
Renewable energy and energy efficiency are cut in half. As they undermine and replace California's tougher requirements, they could actually have a negative overall effect. This isn't hard to believe, considering that California is the *world's 7th largest economy.
Assuming we don't decide to run our planet into the ashes, much stronger legislation will have to be passed. But if this bill becomes law, it will be MUCH HARDER for lawmakers to accomplish this task.
Industry polluters will point to this bill and argue that these terms were signed in good faith. Environmentalists will be painted as reneging on their end of the deal. Legislators will seek cover with their constituents by pointing to a bill already on the books, failing in their sound bytes to mention how toothless the law really is.
Let's not repeat the mistakes the Easter Islanders did a few hundred years ago. Call your Representative today, and urge him or her NOT to pass this piece of trash.
"..... lines the pockets of polluters..."
I think we should worry about US, not about THEM. Specifically, which approach is better, overall, to limit greenhouse gasses put into the atmosphere.
Compromise is a great thing
Compromise is a great thing . . . when it's grounded in reality. The unfortunate reality is that targeted reductions must be met. Are greens questioning climate science now, too? Did the climate agree to sit down at the bargaining table? Any compromise that doesn't begin with an agreement that targeted reductions reflective of real science is a political fantasy. Obama is saving his political capital and so should greens. We are going to pass a climate bill. But two climate bills are unlikely. Get it right the first time.
Oh--and--make the polluters pay.
Chicken Little Environmentalism
Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our present climatic era. The predictions of warming are based on modeling, these computer models have been crafted & reformated since the Rio Conference on Climate Change in 1991 (predates Kyoto by approx 7 years). These models continue to undergo revision, as we learn more, guess what?...Inspite of soaring CO2 emissions from year to year. Every major revision has: REDUCED AND EXTENDED FURTHER INTO THE FUTURE THE PREDICTED GLOBAL WARMING RATE.
The complex and multi-variable matrix that is Climate is far from being a simple "Greenhouse" Anthropogenic Warming is not established to the extent many think. A consensus is not a substitute for a proved event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model.
Remember the Y2K scare? the poor countries that spent ZERO on computer protection fared as well as the U.S. and it's $50,000,000.00 Y2K placebo.
The major difference between
The major difference between the "Y2K" scare and this subject is that the "Y2K" scare was popular among ho-dunk, trashy, snake-waving red-necks.
The anti-environmentalists who oppose pollution control are typically: ho-dunk, trashy, snake-waving red-necks.
Lets suppose that you are correct, namely that humans can't control the global temperature? Why must we spew pollution (in all it many forms) into our air, water and food?
Oh yes and BTW: Smoking doesn't cause cancer (no concrete evidence), AIDS is a gay disease, trans-fats are not only healthy but the body requires them for proper nutrition and Elvis is alive (and waiting for Jesus to return).
You wrote: "The major
You wrote: "The major difference between the "Y2K" scare and this subject is that the "Y2K" scare was popular among ho-dunk, trashy, snake-waving red-necks."
But that isn't true. "Y2K" was was popular with progressive elitists.
Trashy, snake-waving red-necks as you call them weren't really very worried about "Y2K" because the few of them that did own a computer knew that they would survey anyway because they had their shot-guns, rifles and 4 wheel drives.
By the way, what is a ho-dunk? I've never heard that one. Po-dunk, yes. Bo-hunk, yeah, that one too. But ho-dunk is a new one on me. Can you please explain?
Correction
That should have read SURVIVE, not survey.
Actually, the cyber crowd of
Actually, the cyber crowd of 1999 had some fun with it. They selected "Saint Isadore", who invented the farmer's almanac (in France) and therefore invented the data-base--and prayed to him. I guess it worked.
On the other hand, the po-dunk, bo-hunk, ho-dunk pre-nanderthals were convinced that the entire world was ending, not just cyber-space. Literally hundreds (if not thousands) of smaller (independent) churches had regular services in preparation.
Confucius say:
"Feeding roses to your cows will not produce more fragrant manure . . ."
insipid slight of hand...
Nice try but my comments were directed on CO2 ONLY. Your desire is not justification enough for placing CO2 into the same class as Toxic pollution caused by Heavy Metals, Chlorinated Hydrocarbons & Unsequestered Radioactive Waste. I work in the environmental field and I have seen first hand, how global warming Eco-trendiness, is in danger of sucking all the 'Oxygen' out of other established environmental urgencies.
Your recklessness in conflating CO2 pseudo-pollution, with proved; how did you phrase it? "Pollution in all it's forms". Only goes to point that a smug certainty, derived from rote parroting 'uber allies' to the almighty Carbon Footprint, is what makes you 'tick'. Politically Correct Science creates pseudo-science, and makes for bad public policy. It risks impoverishing our society for inconsequential returns. This in turn makes it less likely a society will fund environmental cleanups. Poor societies do spend to protect Mother Nature.
As for your other rationalizations they serve to betray the inner-fascist you harbor, and are therefore your cross to bear. I'm sure you are well-meaning, but woefully as that proverb so clearly states: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"; will once again be shown to be true, if this politically driven 'consensus' continues to expand.
best comment, period.
best comment, period.
This is politics and it aint
This is politics and it aint pretty. The first rule is never tell the truth. But I do not agree so let me say that after a life time of engineering fossil, and nuclear power plants, I think most of the environmental movement is suicidal nonsense. The reason that alternate energy technologies will never become wide spread, is cost. For inherent technical reasons, they will always cost far more than a modern society can afford. Given that, and greed, large companies conclude that they will be green if and only if the costs are loaded on others, by law. This is the essence of US-CAP. Only oligopolies, and politicians could consummate this deal, which is technically useless, but profitable to a few. After thirty years of lawyering, the US is at a decision point. It has become crystal clear that this law will destroy our industrial way of life, there is no bright future in outlawing combustion. This is the reason that Americans never accepted global warming, and the reason the politicians are dancing.
And we will never solve our energy problems until technically trained people quit lying to laymen. It is the reason that I write to Mother Jones.
now the greens are fighting
now the greens are fighting themselves.
how much CO2 has been exhaled in the course of this debate? what's the tax on that?
makes one wonder if there really is a problem.
Carbon dioxide is a
-
tagged as:
- solution
Carbon dioxide is a pollutant?!?! What are we going to do about all the people who breathe this out every day?
Maybe if we put plastic bags over all of their heads to trap the output, we could solve all the man-made environmental problems in one swoop. No people = no pollution! Yay?
Kill the bill now. Cap and
Kill the bill now. Cap and tax is nothing but an obvious attempt to gut the coal industry and increase tax revenues.
I'll believe environomentalists are serious about golbal warming
I think the big difference between conservatives and liberals is not whether they believe in global warming or not but whether they want to believe. To liberals/environmentalists global warming is good because it forces us to do what they think should be done anyways (reduce use of fossil fuels). In the era of the spotted owl no really cared about the owl, it was the old growth forests that environmentalist cared about. Suppose tomorrow incontovertible proof was presented that global warming was not a threat. Would you be happy or sad? I think environmentalists would be sad. But you can easily prove me wrong. Environmentalists have long opposed nuclear power, but it would be (and is) a real asset in fighting global warming. If environmentalists came out and said even though we instinctively oppose nuclear power, it is a necessary evil, then I would believe....
P.S. I think any climate change legislation should include scientific predictions of how much of a difference in global temperatures it will make (1C, 0.1C, 0.001C????)
re "suppose tomorrow
re "suppose tomorrow incontrovertible proof was presented that global warming was not a threat."
That is no longer within the realm of possibility, as the scientists who actually do climate change research would tell you. What the science is showing is that destructive climate change is in fact happening much faster than anyone had anticipated.
Nukes Now
If the enviro-wackos were serious about reducing CO2 they would be supporting building new nuclear power plants. 3d generation designs using mixed oxide fuel recycling are by far the best base load power solution available and also the most environmentally friendly. Of course logic plays very little role in green thinking.
1) A bill to tax me to
1) A bill to tax me to subsistence level living (if I'm lucky) while enriching GE and all the "scientific" researchers who get grants by including the magic words "global warming" in their applications. (GE owns the old Enron trading platform for emissions)
2) Nothing to speed up nukes which might help all polution levels as well as increase available energy.
3) How powerful do you want the state to be? You may be on their side now, but time has a way of changing things and what you support with all your capabilities now may well be used against you in the future. So again, how much power do you want your future enemy to have?
Good not the enemy of perfect
1955 -- Air Pollution Control Act
1963 -- the first 'Clean Air Act'
1965 -- CAA Amendments
1967 -- Air Quality Act
All of these pollution control measures sucked, but they all drew attention to the smog over LA and Lancaster and Dearborn. Even the 1970 Clean Air Act was weak in many regards ... most of today's environmentalists would be appalled at how easy that Act made it for polluters. But the 1977 Amendments, and especially the 1990 Amendments ... just a huge success that not even the anti-regulation right-wing can deny.
I see all kinds of weaknesses with Waxman-Makey, many of which aren't even mentioned in this article. But we need to get something on the books and start the process towards GHG emission reductions. Period. The time for amendments will come. They always do. When temps start reflecting the current solar activity cycle upward such that the skeptics will have nowhere to hide, when the Chinas and the Indias of the world start experiencing the definitive AGW impacts -- both of which will happen within the next 6-7 years -- everyone, Repbs and Dems alike, will be looking to make it stronger. But let's get this on the books NOW.
This huge tax increase will
This huge tax increase will increase the cost of energy across the economy. Everything you do and buy will be more expensive.
The effect on global warming will be zero, because China and India, and the rest of the world, will not condemn their people to perpetual poverty, and kneecap their economies, to possibly reduce global warming a few generations from now.
Environmentalists should be in favor of cheap energy, as this provides the economic surplus to pay for all of the environmental improvements we have seen over the past 50 years in the US.
In addition, everyone should object to the huge reductions in privacy and personal freedom that the government's micro-management of the economy envisioned here will bring.
Energy Independence
-
tagged as:
- solution
We should make massive investments in all energy sources available today, such as Nuclear, Wind, Clean-Coal, Solar, and fuel - that is not derived from oil. Obviously, oil will have to be used until we develop alternatives to it (Drill Here, Drill Now,
Pay Less!).
I am also in favor of offering an incentive for an individual or group to come up with an alternative energy source so that we can stop the transfer of our wealth to OPEC. ("The total domestic economic loss in America due to oil import purchases was in the range of 4.5 TRILLION for just 2008 alone!") If we can offer someone $25 Million for the capture of Osama Bin Laden, surely we can offer that same amount to an individual to come up with the right formula for a synthetic oil to propel an engine or a machine.
Let’s encourage more individuals to be like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford.
What is also important to know is this “Waxman-Markey Bill” currently in Congress is primarily a tax bill and does not provide any Blueprint of what America is specifically going to do to make our country Energy Independent and reduce CO2 emissions. So, we need to know what "Green" jobs are definitely going to be created as a result of this bill that has a title, job description, and a base salary.
In addition, to make sure gas is more affordable today, I would impose restrictions on the trading of oil futures and only allow fuel stations to change their prices once a week (Like NJ).
Let America Be America:...Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness for Everyone!
Mark Memoly
Missouri Will Show The Way!
Kansas City – (Best Barbeque In USA & Have A Bud To Go With It)
http://www.visitmo.com/
Keep Memoly In Your Memory!
Elect Mark Memoly US Senator – MO: http://mmemoly.newsvine.com/
Sierra Club
Like Larry Fahn and M.K. Dorsey, I am also a member of the Sierra Club board of directors. The article's claim of a "knock-down drag-out fight" within the Sierra Club is hyperbole in the extreme. We have healthy debates as any large and vibrant environmental advocacy organization should.
hyperbole
That line was in no way meant to convey that the debate within the Sierra Club was characterized by personal animosities. My understanding is that there was a lot of back and forth over this, but that it hewed to the issues.
Your wise elected officials
Your wise elected officials are about to visit upon you cap and trade, in the name of ending global climate change on a planet where the climate has never been static. This is fundamentally not a new phenomenon; it is merely a reprise of a level of hubris displayed by uppity humans from time to time, like Dr. Frankenstein reanimating dead tissue or your biblical ancestors building the Tower of Babel to reach heaven, both prostitutions of science and technology for the sake of exalting human influence. Cap and trade also prostitutes science, with the toxic side effect of lining rich folks' pockets with the dollars of poor folks, regressive taxation on a massive scale. In the wake of its passage I predict unregulated cowboy credit-trading behavior that will make ENRON scandals look like high school hijinks. Mark your calendar and check out how Al Gore or T. Boone Pickens is doing a year or two from now. They'll both be fat as Buddhas.
The bill will oblige certain behavioral changes and a huge societal cost, but there is no evidence that those changes will have any effect, or the desired effect. What is the desired effect, by the way? In order to answer that question, you first have to know the answer to this question: What is the right temperature for the Earth's atmosphere? You don't know; you can't know; no one can, so there is no standard here, no way to know if this legislation is a good thing or a bad thing. Not only can you not know it now, before implementing cap and trade, you will never be able to know. This is not policy-making; it is guesswork and not even educated guesswork. Its outcome will be legislatively mandated ACTIVITY paid for with the dollars of the folks who can afford them least; there will only and always be just ACTIVITY, there is no hope for a measurable OUTCOME. Any change in “global temperature” (whatever that means) arising from this legislation will be swallowed up as a rounding error by the real drivers of global climate -- solar energy inputs, volcanism, photosynthesis, the hydrologic cycle, and smoldering coal mine fires in China.
Any climate change that flows from our expensive change in behavior will be too small to measure; so that’s change you not only CAN believe in, it is change you have to believe in because there is no way to prove it. Like the existence of an afterlife, you have to take it as an article of faith, because it will be impossible to test or even to detect it. And best of all for advocates of more government, it’s a headsIwintailsyoulose arrangement: If there are fewer hurricanes in 2016, it will be because we acted responsibly in 2009, seeItoldyouitwouldwork, but we must do more. If there are more hurricanes in 2016, it will be Bush’s fault for not signing Kyoto ifonlywehadstartedsooner and we must do more. The “right” temperature for the atmosphere will join a long line of things your wise elected (and unelected) officials now have the “right” answers for: the “right” mix of the races and genders in professions, schools, jury pools and firehouses (ifonlywehadstartedsooner and we must do more); the “right” level of compensation for executives; the “right” kinds of cars to build; the “right” way to lend money for housing, etc. Coming soon: the “right” amount of medical care and the “right” length to your life. Oh, I almost forgot – and the trains will be made to run on time.
SIERRA CLUB
The Sierra Club at its start agreed not to discuss over-population as an environmental issue. A limited discussion on the environment, is a priori an ineffective or deceptive discussion.
Wow, progress!
I take as a good sign the fact that there have been 32 comments and so far not a single one has brought up the thoroughly debunked old chestnut the scientists predicted a new ice age in the 70's.
If that myth plus the myth that scientists said bees can't fly dies away I will be very happy. It looks like the huge ball of human progress has moved at least a micron to the right. I'll take that on this beautiful Sunday.
Tripp
Ain't it the truth!
haha, you nailed it right on the head.
If only some of what was said on here was brought into the open light, so all of the 'general' public could get a clearer perspective on the truth and expose this RADICAL movement that has ONLY just begun.
IMO - and FWIIW, this new 'concept' of mankind destroying the earth, will lead to a radical movement, more terrifying than the nazi youth brigades... we're being bamboozled, and people better wake up quick!
global warming
When will you people wake up? Global Warming is a hoax.
Steven Stoft-Criticism of Cap & Trade and Waxman
If you still have the spirit for more cap n trade reading, visit http://carolsenergynotes.wordpress.com/. I put up a brief write-up after hearing Steven Stoft, an economist, give a talk on "untax" and dividend vs. cap and trade and the Waxman bill. Stoft works with Dr. Hansen: not a Waxman fan. I would welcome some comment from some folks who've been digging into this longer than I have.
. When will you people wake
.
When will you people wake up? Global Warming is a hoax.
tiffany jewelry
. When will you people wake
.
When will you people wake up? Global Warming is a hoax.
tiffany jewelry
