By the time we get a decent climate bill it will be too late. It might be too late already. So this climate bill is too little, too late. When the earth gets too hot and the ensuing climate wars are killing millions, developing carbon scrubbers will be too costly. This is a problem we can't let happen because the enormity of it will prevent our fixing it.

I've read some disturbing comments, notably in Rolling Stone, that the Cap and Trade Act will be a new vehicle for the Financial Markets to exploit, along with any investors.

I ain't nowhere near enough smart to understand all that. But based on the prevailing Greed is Good ethos we see among the financial community, it sure gives me cause to pause.

That something must be done is a given. Letting the private sector have all that money does not seem like a plan.

Having a fund that pays out to inventors to find/develop new energy sources and or alternative fuels seems better.

Most importantly, we have to get past this Red/Blue bull and start thinking about our Country and its future. Because that future will be ours someday soon.

Start recalling Congress Critters who follow the Corporate line instead of their constituents. Quit voting for those who ignore their District, other than to secure earmarks for Federal Projects in the District.

But here I run up against that old bug a boo; common sense. The American Voter has shown an amazing lack too often.

And far too many have just given up on politics altogether. Not realizing that their inaction aids those acting against them.

Handouts to coal and oil?

"The bill in its current form would bolster the nuclear power industry and would provide handouts to the coal and oil industries."

That says it all. It's certainly not a climate protection bill if it hands taxpayer money out to coal and oil.

Not to mention that it weakens the Clean Air Act, one of our most effective tools for pollution control.

I understand compromise, but I also recognize selling out.

No way, no way, no way.

They did such a good job with health care, thet're gonna try it again. "Fool me once....

for more on Gang Green's polluter-friendly policies:

http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/tools-resources/issues/mcj-take-on-corporate-polluters-and-corporate-environmental-organizations/

and also www.us-cap.org

It's unconscionable and an outrage for NRDC and Sierra Club to endorse the American Power Act. It should be called the American Corporate Power Grab Act. And what's this buzz about the EPA not being an appropriate agency to regulate pollution and environment? That's what it was created to do. The fact that they are not elected seems like a good thing, not a bad thing, especially given the new rule allowing unlimited corporate campaign contributions. The EPA must not be a political office, but a science-based, objectively unbiased (or perhaps biased in favor of the environment) office. It seems to me the only people that wouldn't like that kind of EPA are the ones who would pay them off to get what thay want. I've heard this "unelected" argument among various lawmakers, mostly Republican, and if you ask me these folks deserve an early retirement from public life.

NRDC and the other groups supporting this bill must not understand the difference between global warming and conventional pollution. That is the only explanation I can think of. Their assertion that the bill is a good start proves it, even if they weren’t willing to gut the Clean Air Act, the only remedy we will have for an inadequate bill.

How inadequate is the bill? It has a target of 0.3% reduction from 1990 levels, when the 2007 IPCC report says we need a 25-40% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020 in order to stay below catastrophic warming levels. (Don’t be fooled by the claims of 17% reductions, as this is using a 2005 baseline – a way to fool people that seems to have fooled most environmental groups.) Not only that, but the cap and trade mechanism has not worked very well in the past, indicating they probably would not reach whatever targets they establish (just like almost no Kyoto treaty countries reached their targets using cap and trade).

Unlike conventional pollution, CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long, long time. The atmospheric concentration we stabilize at will last roughly 1,000 years, and it will then fall very slowly, taking hundreds of thousands of years to return to preindustrial levels (assuming we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions). This means you can’t really “catch up” later if you have inadequate reductions levels now.
A barely adequate (and still very risky) “first step” would be a 25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, and a good first step would be a 40% reduction by 2020. We almost surely need to do more than this, judging by many scientific findings that came out after the 2007 IPCC report was released that indicate their predictions are too optimistic.

The reduction levels in this bill would take us to around 650 ppm CO2-eq, with a best guess temperature rise of 3.7 degrees C above preindustrial levels, and a 20% chance of going higher than 5.6 degrees C above preindustrial levels. And that assumes we don’t hit a “tipping point” or positive feedback loop. Almost the entire world has agreed we must not let temperatures rise more than 2 degrees above preindustrial levels, partly because of the dangers of feedback, partly just because of the disastrous effects that would happen even without feedback.

In summary, anybody supporting this bill is supporting a horrible future for life on this planet. I wish every environmental organization and every environmentalist would understand the nature of global warming and climate change before putting their support behind any bill.

The problems of the Democratic Party and most of the national environmental organizations are the same. Both depend upon "campaign contributions" from wealthy donors in order to function. This, in turn, limits their freedom, even their opinion of what is desirable.

The problem with the ZDems (and the Big Green orgs) is NOT a "lack of courage," but their need to satisfy their donor base. It is "unrealistic" to stray to far from the interests, and outlook, of the wealthy.

Arundhati Roy once said there are two superpowers left in the world. The US government and the organized, international movement for justice.

While I believe it is necessary for progressives to elect better Democrats and fight within the party for it to take stronger stands, in the absence of a strong, independent movement for justice, including environmental justice, Big Money will continue to dominate the DP and the enviro organizations.

It is not a matter of ideological "centrism" or a lack of backbone. It is dancing to the tune of he who pays the piper.

Anything that comes from Leiberman and his ilk, that THIS senate would approve, CAN'T be good for the country.
It's just another morass of theft, pork, and confusion to render it worthless and even destructive.

Brian, 00:35, makes a good point that the rate of emissions reductions planned in this (or any) senate climate bill is too little. James Hansen has said that he feels we only have about two years to make a major turnaround.

I am a fan of the CLEAR Act as the basis for a climate bill. However, I am hoping that we will be much more radical with the actual rate of emissions reductions than what is presently written in the bill or when the reductions actually begin. The structure is great--I'd like to see the numbers changed.

With the CLEAR Act there is one extra opportunity however. No matter what the emissions reduction standards, there would be loan funds--taking advances on one's own future dividend income--available to anyone for such as installing one's own clean energy generating systems. People could make the transition to clean energy and lowered emissions person by person and family by family no matter how fast--or slow--industry and government want to move ahead.

P.S. If I hear "we have to start somewhere" from another progressive, I am going to throw up in my mouth. That's what we said about health care reform, and now we're all facing premium hikes next year. Some reform. That's what we said about economic stimulus, orchestrated by the Goldman-Sachs division at Treasury, and we're still in double-digit unemployment with no end in sight. That's what we said about exit strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan. Need I say more?