You know it’s getting bad for Lurch when members of his own party are getting creeped out by his obsession with passing Cap & Tax.
Kerry’s style, said Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), is akin to being “pursued by a suitor, just as boys pursue girls.”
Rockefeller, who last week called on the Senate to ignore carbon limits, declined to say whether Kerry is the Democrats’ best messenger on climate, saying it was “sort of too direct a question” to answer.
“Well, he’s certainly a constant,” Rockefeller said. “The question is whether that’s good.”
“He’s so obsessed,” said one wavering Democratic senator who has been pursued by Kerry. “Clearly, it’s all climate, all the time with him.”
Kerry is well aware that his tactics may have turned off some of his colleagues.
“No one pretends this has been an easy issue,” he told POLITICO. “It’s been contentious for the 20 years we’ve been trying to pass a bill. Have I worked aggressively? Absolutely. But I’ve also listened hard.”
Easy for him to say when he is not running for reelection for years. As for listening hard, read on.
But Thursday’s climate-focused Democratic Caucus meeting left some senators grumbling that Kerry talked too much and didn’t listen enough. Although Kerry opened his presentation with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) by apologizing for being so aggressive on the issue and explaining how important he thinks it is, he then went on to speak much longer than either New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman or Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, the two other presenters at the meeting.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had to postpone the discussion for another meeting this week.
This brilliant plan would base a nation’s cap on the carbon footprints of it’s wealthiest citizen’s. Under the plan, the United States would have its cap based on hypocrites such as Al Gore and Laurie David. The list would be a who’s who of liberal elites who fly around in their private jets while their mansions devour more energy than your average U.S. neighborhood – and we would end up with higher energy costs based on their excesses.
WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) – To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country. Since about half the planet’s climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries — including fast-growing economies China and India — are not required to curb greenhouse pollution. Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up. The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one. For example, if world leaders agree to keep carbon emissions in 2030 at the same level they are now, no one person’s emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year. That means there would be about a billion “high emitters” in 2030 out of a projected world population of 8.1 billion.
Somewhere in a land far, far away a tree without a voice is breathing a sigh of relief.
If a tree falls in Brazil, it will, in fact, be heard in the U.S. – at least if a little-noticed provision in the pending climate-change bill in Congress becomes law.
As part of the far-reaching climate bill, the House is set to vote Friday on a plan to pay companies billions of dollars not to chop down trees around the world, as a way to reduce global warming.
The provision, called “offsets,” has been attacked by both environmentalists and business groups as ineffective and poorly designed. Critics contend it would send scarce federal dollars overseas to plant trees when subsidies are needed at home, while the purported ecological benefits would be difficult to quantify.
The offsets “would be a transfer of wealth overseas,” said William Kovacs, vice president for environmental affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.