Political Hotsheet
June 23, 2009 12:12 PM

Pelosi Takes A Gamble On Climate Change Bill

(AP)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has scheduled a floor vote for a controversial climate change bill for this week, even though some key Democrats may not yet be on board with the significant changes the legislation would make.

Other Democratic leaders are still working out compromises in the bill, but Pelosi filed the legislation with the House Rules Committee Monday night, Politico reported, meaning the full House of Representatives will vote on the matter. The speaker has said she wanted a vote on the bill before the Congress breaks next week for its July 4 holiday.

"There are some issues still under discussion, but we are confident we can resolve them by the time the bill goes to the floor on Friday," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told Politico in an e-mail.

Hammill said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson both agreed to the vote. Waxman, who led the development of the climate change bill, has been negotiating with Peterson, who wants to ease the burden the bill may place on farmers and rural residents who may face higher electricity costs than urban citizens.

The massive, nearly 1,000-page bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 from 2005 levels and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. The legislation aims to meet that goal by instituting a price on carbon emissions through a "cap-and-trade" system, which would enable industries to buy and trade permits that allow them to emit certain levels of carbon. About 85 percent of the permits would be given away, however -- an example of the significant compromises Waxman has orchestrated to gain broader support for the bill.

While some Democrats are still on the fence, so are some environmental groups, as a result of all the compromises. Greenpeace and other groups have already withdrawn their support for the bill.

Meanwhile, Republicans have protested the cost the legislation would impose on all Americans -- not just farmers.

A recent Congressional Budget Office report, however, projected only a modest average household cost increase of $175 a year after various cost-saving measures included in the bill were taken into account. The poorest households would, in fact, save $40 a year, the report estimated.

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), a co-sponsor of the bill, compared the cost to "a postage stamp a day."
Tags:
climate change ,
Nancy Pelosi ,
cap and trade
Topics:
Energy
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 40 Comments
by nomorewars June 24, 2009 5:15 PM EDT
F*ck Nancy Pelosi she's a damn joke herself.
Reply to this comment
by ClimateTF June 24, 2009 3:06 PM EDT
I think most people would happily pay $200 a year to ensure a cleaner environment. The problem is that Waxman-Markey is a watered-down, toothless bill that will do little to stem the tide of global climate change. Moreover, the problem is the complicated and convoluted subprime carbon market that comes with cap and trade. A revenue-neutral carbon tax is straightforward and transparent, incentivizes green R&D and returns the revenue to the people. It's a win for the environment and a win for the economy.
Reply to this comment
by dartplayer501 June 23, 2009 4:41 PM EDT
by Turbidite June 23, 2009 1:24 PM PDT

As Arte Johnson would say Pferrrry Eeeenterestink. I've never even heard of the Phanerozoic era before. Seems to cover a whole bunch of time though. A correlation between 18O concentration and temperature - where can I read more?
Reply to this comment
by dartplayer501 June 23, 2009 4:24 PM EDT
by Willynailer June 23, 2009 12:38 PM PDT
The so called experts do not have the slightest idea what is actually causing so called Global Warming. Oh wait a minute, this has been going on for millions of years. Maybe the dinosaurs were putting out to much carbon.


You can't compare anything weatherwise happening today to "millions of years ago." When dinosaurs first appeared there was only on continent, Pangea that was centered on the equator. Take that as an example and everything's way cooler than it was.
Reply to this comment
by quapawsix June 23, 2009 4:05 PM EDT
Sounds like another way to keep people off balance and steal their money under the term taxes.
Reply to this comment
by tomadams99 June 23, 2009 3:50 PM EDT
Old Plastic Girl has come back from the motor mouthing of the CIA has she...boy taking a big chance there Nancy girl. "There she was...a complete unknown...until she opened her mouth and proved herself a fool.
Reply to this comment
by Questionews June 23, 2009 3:45 PM EDT
Will someone please hack into the CBS website & Photoshop a paper bag on her head. The woman looks like she could be an alien walk on in the next Star Trek movie.
Reply to this comment
by dartplayer501 June 23, 2009 3:43 PM EDT
3. Fear tactics won't work on the thinking public. The earth has been warming since the last ice age (10,000 years ago)
4. Volcanoes worldwide produce 100 times the polluton of humans

by geminispyder-2009 June 23, 2009 11:43 AM PDT

Comments on these two points - yes the average temperature has been rising since the ice age, but more because of changes in ocean currents than anything else. It's the RATE of change that has increased recently that is most troubling.

Your volcano stat is interesting - I've heard that before, but no mention of a time scale. Volcano vs humans for one day - volcane wins. Volcano for one day, humans for 100 years - not so obvious. Do you have a reference?
Reply to this comment
by leeanna59 June 23, 2009 3:37 PM EDT
Long live Obama and Biden. If something happens to them, Pelosi wlll be the President. Does that cause you to shudder or what?
Reply to this comment
by Questionews June 23, 2009 3:35 PM EDT
So, is this the bill that's going to double my energy bill?? Or is that one coming later? I would just like to know when I need to go out & buy an old wood stove! Get them now, they're getting scarce.
Reply to this comment
by despido June 23, 2009 3:25 PM EDT
by iam4honesty June 23, 2009 10:04 AM PDT
Any politician, Democrat, Republican or Independent who votes against this bill should be tarred and feathered. Even if the predictions are not correct, there is absolutely no excuse for supporting pollution, unless of course it is for bribes.
===================================
Humans, by their very nature, have a detrimental effect on the environment. When can we expect your suicide?
Reply to this comment
by ralpherus June 23, 2009 3:25 PM EDT
If we took just the fat pig super rich democrats, and boiled the oil out of them, we could run probably five city bus companies for three or four days. AND we would be be free of their evil greed trying to erase freedom!
Reply to this comment
by Turbidite June 23, 2009 3:23 PM EDT
Gosh, it is truly impressive to see how many of you have read the 1,000+ page Bill submitted by Speaker Pelosi and her fellow Democrats. The bill has largely been neutered by Sen. Waxman's trade giveaways amounting to 85% of the total. This effectively makes the bill a wash since those States receiving the trades to return to their usual CO2 levels can go ahead without additional cost. It is ironic that the two from California (Pelosi & Waxman) are so strongly promoting this bill when California, despite all its taxes and clean-up efforts still has one of the most atmospherically polluted cities (Los Angeles) in the USA. So why should the rest of the nation listen to these characters? Truly! What the devil do they really understand concerning the scientific basis of the Global Warming phenomenon. The same question should be applied to VP Gore as well. The depth of misunderstanding of Global Warming is so profound that it will take years and some very serious scientific understanding to correct the unintended, and some intended, falsehoods promoted by armies of amateurs claiming to be experts.
Reply to this comment
by ralpherus June 23, 2009 3:22 PM EDT
The one problem with speaker pelosi's gamble, is that the cheap, stupid, treasonous ugly scum murder pig democrat is gambling OUR FUTURE- not just her own!! Damn the democrats to hell. Stop doing business with them. Do not watch their news shows. Do not sell them food, or toilet repairs, or surgery! Pass it on!
Reply to this comment
by dartplayer501 June 23, 2009 2:57 PM EDT
You tell me what you would've done smart a$$.
by geminispyder-2009 June 23, 2009 11:43 AM PDT

Actually I voted against the recall - I lived in L.A. at the time. Given the choice of paying an extra $275-475 a year (that's $5.29-9.13 a week) on car liscencing OR having no teachers, lousy schools, no state parks, no libraries etc. etc. I'd have paid the extra car tax. Oh, and BTW the deficit is now $41.8 billion and bankruptcy is staring you in the face. Thank you Darrell Issa and his loyal acolytes in Orange County.
Reply to this comment
by tbird6740 June 23, 2009 2:33 PM EDT
Would SOMEBODY just PLEEEEEEEEEZE shut Nancy Pelosi UP?
Reply to this comment
by ralpherus June 23, 2009 3:30 PM EDT
tbird- what, you mean like someone who took the oath to actually live up to the oath? I have been waiting for that for DECADES. It is going to be up to the people to LIVE THE OATH.
by dartplayer501 June 23, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
by geminispyder-2009 June 23, 2009 11:21 AM PDT

And Grey Davis got recalled because of it.

And that worked out real well didn't it.
Reply to this comment
by geminispyder-2009 June 23, 2009 2:43 PM EDT
Well, the choices were:
Have a governor that left the state with a FY2003 $37 billion dollar deficit and force California residents to pay $400-$600 a year on what should be a $125/year for car registration?
Or elect a new governor to work with a legislature that couldn't decide on what to have for lunch?

You tell me what you would've done smart a$$.
by geminispyder-2009 June 23, 2009 2:19 PM EDT
"The legislation aims to meet that goal by instituting a price on carbon emissions through a "cap-and-trade" system, which would enable industries to buy and trade permits that allow them to emit certain levels of carbon."

So, Pelosi + "cap-and-trade" = all corporations need are tons of money to put out all the crap air they want.

Did I miss something?
Reply to this comment
by dartplayer501 June 23, 2009 2:19 PM EDT
A few general questions for GW deniers. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you really believe that Al Gore dreamed up GW just for the hell of it? What happens if you're wrong - if the scientists are wrong, they'll just make another model - if you're wrong and we do nothing you'll drown and life as we know it will cease. Isn't it a good idea to avoid that possiblity? If we carry on the way we are GW will arise if it hasn't already - why are you so in favor of pollution? Why are liberals out to destroy the world's economy? - what could we possibly gain from that?? Why did banning DDT lead to the deaths of millions of Africans? There's more but that's enough for now. I challenge any one of you to answer these questions.
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 June 23, 2009 3:09 PM EDT
It is past time we did something about proven GW. The half-wit right will be the last to figure out what is happening. The longer we wait, the more draconian the measures will have to be, if GW turns out to be as bad as it possibly could.

Do you think rightwingers think about the millions of poor people who will be displaced by rising sea levels in places like Bangladesh, and Central and South America? Where do they think those people will go, when their property goes underwater?

When the time comes, they'll just pull out their guns and shoot to kill. Killing is what they're good at.
by dartplayer501 June 23, 2009 2:11 PM EDT
by whitemale08 June 23, 2009 10:57 AM PDT
The Vanuatu in the Pacific was predicted to erode back in the 14th century.

By who?? The island wasn't even DISCOVERED until the 18th century (Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1768). You really think that the natives knew about the rest of the world, let alone global warning?? And then Hawaii - where did you get that idea from?? If anything the Big Island is getting larger - it's a volcano. You really MUST stop reading imarightwingnutcase.com.
Reply to this comment
by whitemale08 June 23, 2009 2:34 PM EDT
Scientists at the end of the 14th century 'discovered' (not speculated) that water erosion could in theory erode every land space.

However because of volcanoes and other natural causes, land will form again elsewhere.
See all 40 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Senate Health Bill Faces Crucial Vote

    (264 recent comments)

HOTSHEET ON TWITTER