TV Schedule

White House slams climate bill


  1. merasyad
  2. related topics
The White House on Monday slammed legislation the U.S. Senate will consider this week aimed at controlling climate change, arguing it would cut economic growth and lead to soaring gasoline prices.

"As you can imagine, our opposition to this will be quite strong and we'll be making these points throughout the week," Keith Hennessey, director of President George W. Bush's National Economic Council, said at a White House forum on the economy and taxes.

U.S. gross domestic product could be reduced by as much as 7 percent in the year 2050 and gasoline prices -- already at record highs in the United States-- could soar by as much as 53 cents a gallon by 2030, he said.

The legislation the Senate will debate, which is not expected to become law this year amid a presidential election, could cut total U.S. global warming emissions by 66 percent by 2050, according to a summary of the measure.

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would drop by about 2 percent per year between 2012 and 2050, based on 2005 emission levels, under the measure.

The bill would cap carbon emissions from 86 percent of U.S. facilities, and emissions from those would be 19 percent below current levels by 2020 and 71 percent below current levels by 2050, according to a summary of the bill's details released by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The Bush administration has consistently opposed an across-the-board cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas emitted by fossil-fueled vehicles and coal-fired industries, as well as by natural sources including human breath.
merasyad

61 responses // White House slams climate bill

  • fuckers.
    onechance
  • Gotta keep that GDP growing, even at the expense of our environment. Idiots. There is a ton of economic growth opportunity in solar, wind, green building, etc. and we are going to let the rest of the world take advantage of it while Bush looks out for his oil and coal buddies. Idiots. Who elected this ahole?
    jefftego
  • The funny thing is, NOBODY elected this chimp asshole. They stole the White house.

    The few brain dead people that DID vote for Chimpy weren't enough to actually elect him, so in came Diebold to rig the numbers.
    onechance
  • "U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would drop by about 2 percent per year between 2012 and 2050, based on 2005 emission levels, under the measure."



    Still using gasoline in 2050. I F'n hope not

    I have driven less than 3 times a week for over a year and am converting my 4runner to hydrogen and ethanol.
    BretByron
  • How many more days is he in office?? Too many for the enviroment. This is getting so ridiculous. Anything that tries to help the climate crisis is automatically condemned. What a jerk.
    recommended by  stephenthomson
    JoQ
    • JoQ
    • 4 months ago
  • They obviously didn't read the bill. But it doesn't surprise me they would be against anything helping this environment in any way. They should have impeached him LONG ago. Funny thing is, they are actually slamming a bill institutional investors want with even stricter emissions standards.

    http://current.com/items/88994150_investors_demand_toug...

    The Bush Regime: once again on the WRONG side. And I don't exactly see them doing anything about the high gas prices we have now because of their sleeping with the oil companies.
    JanforGore
  • "gasoline prices could soar by as much as 53 cents a gallon by 2030"

    correct me if I'm wrong but didn't gas prices go up about 50 cents in the past year? he's saying 53 cents in 20 years is alot?

    Fellow Californians, lets make California a country of its own, and let's stop dealing with these monkeys.
    intercitty
  • watch this comment being used here, here and here
    Do they not realize that Gas should no longer be part of the equation? I don't care if I "have" to pay $500 per gallon. I'll be charging my electric car at home.
    recommended by  Marilynn_Murray
    ipodrulz
  • the environmental cost will far outweigh a simple price hike in gasoline if we dont cap our emissions yesterday.

    ooops. dead.
    recommended by  Marilynn_Murray
    stephenthomson
  • It seems a lot of bad things are happening in 2012.
    Dubdice23
  • Bush wants to assure himself and his cronies lifetimes of bad Karma. Keep your eye out for a plague of unprecedented proportions to strike Crawford, Texas. Bushy, you're certainly earning your way to centuries of bad references in the history textbooks!
    benjaminV
  • The Bush clock is ticking down and no one will ever wind the f****er again!!!!!
    cibalin
  • meanwhile, we keep subsidizing biofuels, which drives up the price of corn, which gives soybean farmers impetus to stop farming soybeans and to start farming corn, which in turn causes farmers in Brazil to plant soybeans and displace cattle ranchers. So, Brazilian cattle ranchers raze the Brazilian rainforest to plant soybeans, causing biofuels to release twice as much carbon into the atmosphere than gasoline. The amount of food an SUV's tank holds in biofuel can feed a person for a year.

    The Bush Adminstration is an organized criminal organization that should be brought to trial under the RICO statutes, amonst others. Dicatorships are illegal in the United States, and the GOP's and Bush's absolute power has corrupted this once-fine nation absolutely. It will take decades to repair the damage they have wrought, if they are repairable at all.
    recommended by  stephenthomson
    hawaii_guy_1010
  • Bush never saw an environmental or labor safety law he liked anyway. Think about his life. He has bankrupted everything he ever touched including Texas and the USA. Then he set out to destroy the world. He has been amazingly successful at destruction.
  • I've heard reports of this bill causing gasoline to hit $8 a gallon over time (though this story said only 53 cents by 2030). If this is true, then I stand by our administration's opposition of the bill.

    I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but there are plenty of people out there that would be destroyed by such prices. If people can't afford to drive, an entirely new can of worms is opened. Sure, there needs to be a push for heightened climate control, but if it's at the cost of the lower/middle class, we're drastically altering America's standard of living in the here and now.

    I guess one of the plus sides to rising prices at the pump is that it's going to eventually force people to drive cleaner vehicles, but introducing a bill that directly effects prices on our behalf doesn't sit well with me right now.
    xTHETAKEOVERx
  • Reducing the US dependency on gasoline and oil should be a priority both in terms of foreign policy and the environment.

    The young generation can withstand slow economic growth, even a full global recession but our tolerance for ridiculous wars and huge environmental damage is stretched beyond belief.

    The UK has some of the highest gas prices in the world yet still manages to function. I disagree that this would destroy some of the lower income families, people are more adaptable than we think, it will change people's standards of living but is it not a fair trade?
    Beta_Boy
  • I wish it were over
    CarolynGillis
  • Have a problem?
    Tax it.
    Have a perceived problem?
    Tax it.
    Cost going up?
    Tax it.

    Must be great to be a Liberal. Always have the same answer to every problem.....real or not.
    anthonyvop
  • I just don't know anymore...
    iknew
  • Why would you oppose the cap-and-trade program for CO2? It's a new development and seems like it could work. Even though if we cut off all the world emissions tomorrow, it would still take hundreds of years for all the gases to dissipitate throughout the air, before they no longer pose a threat. But we could at least ACT like we care? And then saying that this climate bill will cause gas prices to rise? How? Because we all know it's going to rise anyways, and then the other hand is saying that the government has nothing to do with gas prices anyways.... WTF?
    slamber
  • More Proof we need Four more years!!!!
    Vote McCain-Diebold in '08
    Cretony38
  • This FEAR of loss of economic growth is a very old one. This was the same argument made over the great debate of slavery. They thought the economy would suffer without use of slaves. Wrong! Here we are again. Our slave of today is fossil fuel and the rape of the planet for it. We need to get past this small brain thinking if we plan to live on this planet much longer.
    recommended by  Marilynn_Murray, stephenthomson
    twodee
  • Im fine with rising gas prices in order to save our planet. 53 cents over the course of 22 years....um, I think gas prices rose about 100 cents in one year this year, so about 2 pennies a year isnt that bad. Besides, it will get people to use cleaner cars and better ways of transportation. In Europe they have adapted, im sure we can. We need to use metros, buses, trains, etc... more. People use cars and spend more money to get to work than trains, I dont think americans are as educated about their choices as we think.

    I cant believe we have 6 months left of this utter and complete idiot, oh and liar, of a president.
    recommended by  Marilynn_Murray
    NickerBocker09
  • "This FEAR of loss of economic growth is a very old one. This was the same argument made over the great debate of slavery."

    Are you seriously comparing the increase of taxationa nd regulation to the issue of Slavery over 140 years ago in the US?
    anthonyvop
  • I just don't get how he can say this bill will hurt future generations...
    hannesc
  • "I just don't get how he can say this bill will hurt future generations..."

    Easy.
    Lower GDP
    Higher Taxes
    Loss of jobs.

    All for fixing something that dubious at best.
    anthonyvop
  • Transformation is a bitch, but we'd better get going on it...
    24French
  • I don't understand why people are concerned with the US when there is zero economic regulation in China and India. Have any of you been to these countries, or any of the third world? Obviously the US should be regulating it's pollution, but to solely blame America is inaccurate and becoming a cliche.
    dgold0101
  • Who said Bush had a brain? He is spraying his territory until such time as the pest control comes in and whisks him out. He is an exploiter. His actions reveal that humanity is a moot point - that $MUNNEY$ is everything to him and his little helpers --even if they exterminate a planet to get it! Oops! So, let us watch our own carbon footprints while he steps deeper into his karma footprint(s).
    Chewbacka
  • they dont care, they do NOT care

    they dont even care for their own constituency

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/cheney-makes-i...

    THEY DO NOT CARE
    lfm
    • lfm
    • 4 months ago
  • onechance, do you know that it takes fossil fuels to make solar panels, E85, and windmills? In fact, we need alot of fossil fuels to make green products. All you're doing to offseting where the cause of the pollution is coming from.
    Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the ‘urban heat island effect’ i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, ‘false high’ ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.
    w106rll
  • They honestly think we're going to continue our use of gasoline like we do now? Who cares if the price soars. Hopefully by then we won't be using only gasoline! Saving our environment is way more important than 53 cents more for gas. Idiots.
    claggie
  • Kill rich lying bastards with politcal lobbying forsite, now!
    damush
  • ok everyone i respect your spirit you cant just get off of gas in a split second, your probably all liberal so let me break it down in a real easy way.

    You as liberal love poor people.
    By switching off of gasoline, it would almost make their lives impossible. Are you gonna by them a new way to get around? Or convert their 82 oldsmobile to run on somthing else. Are you gonna pay for their 5 dollar a gallon gas when you idiots continue to tax it?
    Wait i think i know you wont pay for it directly you will just support taxes so that ALL of us have to pay for it.


    You guys cant have your cake and eat it too
    which is more important,
    poor people or your precious enviorment

    7 years left untill the world burns up, you guys better decide real quick!!!!
    clayjj05
  • This is stupid. If the White House backed the bill it would be ignored because they did something good. And even then every one would be calling Bush for messing up the economy. Give Bush a break.
    200131294
  • I'd love to give him a break. I'd break my foot off in his Ass!
    damush
  • This is another classic example of playing of on people's fears to drive a short term agenda when we should really be thinking about long term solutions.

    Gas prices increase by $.53 over 22 years? That's 0.6% per year, far below typical inflation rates of 2-3%. And what is that based on? Assuming we continue to use gas at the same rate we are today? Thanks to great innovation in hybrid cars, the trend is moving away from gas fueled cars towards cleaner, less expensive fuel.

    GDP reduction by 7%? Again, what is this based on? Lost income in the fossil fuel industry? What happens when this income is replaced by new, innovative industries producing clean energy? The fear of GDP loss has been stoked many times before when governments push against environmental reform--but the GDP losses have never materialized because new innovation replaces old, outdated industries.

    dgold0101, the reason people are concerned with US pollution is cited here in The Washington Post: "Americans represent 5 percent of the world's population but contribute 45 percent of the world's emission of carbon dioxide, the main pollutant that causes global warming, according to a report by the nonprofit group Environmental Defense." Sure, India and China are becoming big polluters too, b