US Congress // Current

Price tag for another 'stimulus': $20B

The Senate appears ready to drop about $20 billion for two pieces of economic stimulus... more

WakeUpPeople
added this
29 days ago
|
3 comments

U.S. says climate bill might not pass in time

You know, at this point I say, SO WHAT? It isn't as if this Congress is even going to give us a bill that the Earth NEEDS. 17% reductions of GHGs by 2020 is PITIFUL. Dragging your feet on giving us REAL fuel emissions standards is PITIFUL when scientists have already stated we could be getting 80 miles to the gallon in our cars. And where are the subsidies for the AFFORDABLE hybrid plug- ins for the middle class? Ignoring Arctic melt because you want to secure sea routes for the resources there is PITIFUL. Ignoring the effects your cronyism in the agricultural sector are having on the environment is PITIFUL. Continuing to allow the practice of mountaintop removal is CRIMINAL.

So by all means, U.S. Congress, show the world your true colors and just how bought and sold to the coal and oil industries you really are even at a time of planetary crisis. Then go to Copenhagen hanging your heads in shame. Approving the Alberta Clipper pipeline to pipe in dirty bitumen tarsands while trying to tell the world the U.S Is ready to tackle climate change is also an insult to our intelligence. But go ahead, continue to think you can rickroll the American people with your doubletalk and ignorance. The day will come when your decades of inaction will have the full effect and your petty, selfish, politically partisan drivel will be seen for the irrelevance it is.

This also proves their level of consciousness about this is nil. It is not now a question of them having the luxury of a CHOICE as to whether they can pass this in time or not. This is a moral imperative that scientists state must be done and done right to stave off the worst effects of a crisis that will change our way of life. This in essence IS our healthcare bill, because without a sustainable planet we have nothing else, including health.
__________

Excerpt:

The fate of U.S. legislation capping carbon emissions weighed heavily on delegates at U.N. climate talks starting Monday in Bangkok, with the Americans saying delays in passing the bill could deter commitments from other nations.

Negotiations on a new U.N. climate pact have been bogged down by a broad unwillingness to commit to firm emissions targets, and a refusal by developing countries to sign a deal until the West guarantees tens of billions of dollars in financial assistance — something rich countries have so far refused to do.

"The more specific we can be, the easier it is to press others to be equally specific," Jonathan Pershing, the chief U.S. negotiator at the talks, told The Associated Press. "We have a lot of things we want from countries. ... The less we can put on the table, the harder it is to achieve that outcome."

The two weeks of U.N. climate talks in the Thai capital are drawing some 1,500 delegates from 180 countries to boil down a 200-page draft agreement to something more manageable, aiming for a new international climate pact this year.

In June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its first bill to cap carbon emissions. The Senate, currently embroiled in debate on health care, is expected to take up the legislation as early as this week.

But Pershing said he doubted there's enough time to pass a climate bill in Congress before the year's biggest climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December, which aims to reach a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol expiring in 2012.
end of excerptYou know, at this point I say, SO WHAT? It isn't as if this Congress is even going to... more

JanforGore
added this
1 month ago
|
5 comments

HELP SAVE HAWAI`I - SAY "NO!" TO THE AKAKA BILL

DO YOUR PART TODAY TO TELL THE US CONGRESS "NO!" TO THE AKAKA BILL The Akaka Bill... more

FreeHawaiiTV
added this
3 months ago
|
0 comments

Strengthen Safe Drinking Water Act, comment deadline August 12th

Close Halliburton Loophole.

harryosibin
added this
3 months ago
|
0 comments

FREE HAWAI`I TV - "CAN THIS BE HAPPENING?"

Three Things Happened Recently That Are Not Good News For The Akaka Bill, But Very... more

FreeHawaiiTV
added this
4 months ago
|
0 comments

Spying on the Home Front

What did you do for AT&T? How long did you work there? I worked at AT&T for 22 and... more

asherp
added this
4 months ago
|
0 comments

Chesapeake Climate Action Network on ACES bill: We need more

"Barely four months ago, President Obama laid out a framework to fight global warming that was simple, fair, and built to last. All polluters would pay for greenhouse gas emissions, the President said. No exceptions. The money gathered from polluters would then be rebated to middle- and lower-income Americans while leaving $15 billion per year for investments in clean energy and green jobs.

"Unfortunately, thanks to ferocious lobbying from the coal, oil, and agricultural interests, Congress will vote today on a bill that does not come close to matching the original Obama framework. The American Clean Energy and Security Act is complicated (1,200 pages), unfair (gives most permits to polluters for free), and is destined to be overhauled in coming years (by not keeping pace with the physics of runaway global warming).

"The Chesapeake Climate Action Network believes much more is needed than what is presently included in the Waxman-Markey bill. At a minimum, three floor amendments are needed. 1) Restore the U.S. EPA's power to regulate coal plants; 2) Strengthen the clean energy production targets; and 3) Improve the overall greenhouse gas reduction target to better match what scientists say is needed.

"But even these changes do not fully address the bill's two biggest problems: insufficient consumer protection and the unbridled use of so-called carbon "offsets." Allowing polluters to pay for claims of carbon reductions elsewhere - from farmers, forest managers, etc., worldwide - creates enormous problems of scale and verification. As the U.S. Senate prepares to take up this bill, the offsets must be cut far below the current 2 billion tons per year, and the U.S. EPA -- not the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- should be in charge of regulating the process. Otherwise the House version of the bill could open the door for disastrous new coal plants that simply pay farmers to plant genetically-engineered crops on newly disturbed land for carbon reductions that simply never happen.

"As this bill moves forward, the Senate must also dramatically improve consumer protection. President Obama in February proposed rebating 85 percent of the pollution permit funds directly to taxpayers. The Waxman-Markey bill directly rebates only 15 percent of the money. Another 30 percent is given to electric utilities who promise to use the money to "protect" consumers. This recipe will invariably lead to disagreements that land in court where over-matched consumer advocacy groups will face polluters with ample legal funds and lawyers.

"We need to return to "simple, fair, and built to last." All polluters pay. Consumers are protected through direct rebates. And real investments are made in green energy.

"This will only happen if President Obama stands up for his original principles. He can no longer lead from the rear, simply calling on Congress to figure out a plan and send him a climate bill. The President must lead from the front, demanding the Senate do better. Without vast improvements in the Senate, Obama and the United States will fail to meet our moral responsibility to join the international community in negotiating a new global climate treaty later this year in Copenhagen, Denmark. Weak legislation from Congress will encourage other nations to commit to equally weak targets, thus derailing a clean-energy revolution and dooming the planet to climate chaos.

"Recent polling shows that an overwhelming 75 percent of American voters support U.S. action to curb greenhouse gas pollution. The Waxman-Markey bill, rendered complex and unfair by the fossil fuel and agriculture lobby, does not reflect the exceptional good will and determination of the American people to do better. The planet needs more from Congress. The American people deserve more.""Barely four months ago, President Obama laid out a framework to fight global warming... more

JanforGore
added this
5 months ago
|
1 comment

Is this bill the best we can hope for?

"Waxman-Markey... gives away 85% of the pollution credits in the first years of the... more

JanforGore
added this
5 months ago
|
0 comments

Tell Congress it must do better on climate bill

Congress is poised to squander a historic opportunity to move closer to a clean energy... more

JanforGore
added this
5 months ago
|
2 comments

Obama Visits Nazi Concentration Camp

Obama visits the former Nazi Buchenwald concentration camp. For more news video by... more

VSiskos
added this
5 months ago
|
12 comments

Fax Congress: make the Waxman-Markey bill stronger!

To strengthen the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill, we need to be 16 times louder... more

JanforGore
added this
5 months ago
|
0 comments

US won't speed up emissions cuts: top climate negotiator

Well then, get ready for the protests. From the article: Domestic politics will... more

JanforGore
added this
6 months ago
|
1 comment

PM Harper sees no threat to Canadian tar sands from US climate bill

He says he is "comfortable" with it. I wonder why? So let me get this straight: the... more

JanforGore
added this
6 months ago
|
2 comments

Al Gore's statement regarding passage of climate bill from House Energy committee

I do thank Mr. Gore for one thing here: the word "strengthen." I am all for that and... more

JanforGore
added this
6 months ago
|
2 comments

Reforestation would play big role in preventing climate change

North America's primary forests have a big role in preventing climate change. They need our protection.-------------------------------

OK, already. You're changing light bulbs, sealing up leaks in the attic, looking for a smaller car and trying to drive less. By now, most of us are familiar with the urgent need to take every possible action to burn less oil, use less energy and reduce global warming. But, then there are the forests. What are you doing about the forests?

Forests are a big part of the climate equation. Deforestation produces about 20% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Industrial disturbances in forests exacerbate global warming. The more the forest is disturbed, the more carbon is released. Fortunately, North Americans have an outstanding opportunity to aid climate stewardship just by managing and protecting our forests.

This complex issue was incompletely addressed under the Kyoto Protocol. Rules for forest emissions and incentives to reduce them are still being negotiated. Forests and climate change are also an ongoing focus for scientists advising the United Nations.

To date, the spotlight has largely been on tropical forests. But northern forests need to be part of the discussion. Findings recently presented at the UN Forum of Forests demonstrate that protecting remaining primary forests in both the north and the tropics is an effective tool in preventing emissions that would otherwise accelerate climatic disruption. North America's forests have a big role in that global equation.

The circumpolar Boreal Forest, including vast swaths of northern Canada and Alaska, is the world's largest forested region. This forest stores more carbon per acre than any other ecosystem, making it the world's largest terrestrial carbon storehouse. Also important is the complex of coniferous forests in the mountains of lower latitudes, especially in the United States.

In the US, much of the coniferous forest is in public ownership and could be set aside, protected immediately in the public interest, by governmental policy. It should be. This would immediately signify to the world that the nation is serious in its approach to the climatic disruption.

In Canada, with its vast Boreal Forest carbon storehouse, the potential is even greater. Rivalling the Amazon Rainforest in size, the Boreal Forest also provides globally-important, irreplaceable reserves of fresh water and habitat for enormous, healthy populations of wildlife, including millions of migratory caribou and billions of migratory birds.

Over 1,500 international scientists, led by Nobel prize-winning authors for the International Panel on Climate Change, have recommended that at least half of Canada's Boreal Forest be protected from any further disturbance.
__________

I didn't read all 900 plus pages of the ACES bill, but I didn't notice in my reading about it that deforestation in North America, particularly the United States was being addressed in the equation to sequester carbon and that is a big mistake. Just by caring for and reforesting our forests we would sequester enough carbon to go way beyond the 17% by 2020 guideline set by that bill that is way below scientist's recommendations. However, to set aside these public lands to allow the people of America to take part in the solution to this crisis doesn't make $$$$$$$ for those special interests and industries looking to make a pile of money off of this bill. Our forests in America and primarily the Boreal Forest of Alberta that has been ravaged by tarsands needs to be reforested, protected, and cared for. Trees are the natural answer to this crisis. The fact that this Congress will not even address that in a climate bill that is being touted as "historic" only speaks to me of the true motivations behind it. It may sound simple, and it may sound trite, but we need to Plant America.

http://plantamerica.blogspot.comNorth America's primary forests have a big role in preventing climate change. They... more

JanforGore
added this
6 months ago
|
14 comments

The climate movement is too nice regarding climate bill

Off and on, for the last five years that I've been actively involved with the climate movement, I and others have analogized what we need to be doing on this issue to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. What we've meant is that we need a mass movement that is sweeping, that is broadly-based and grounded in the grassroots, that forces civil society to choose between what is right and what is wrong, that uses a wide variety of tactics, and that ultimately is successful in bringing about change.

But there's a much harder lesson from the civil rights movement that, so far, the climate movement as whole, or even significant sections of it, have not internalized: that when faced with deeply-rooted, powerful institutions, it will take people making sacrifices, putting their bodies on the line, if we are to have a realistic chance of bringing about the changes urgently needed.

Or to put it another way: electing Barack Obama as President isn't enough. Especially when his political party and too many of its Congressional members get sizable amounts of campaign contributions from Big Oil and Dirty Coal.

This inconvenient truth has been dramatically revealed with the public release days ago, after a month and a half of internal Democratic Party negotiations, of a 932-page legislative proposal, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, by Henry Waxman's House Energy and Commerce Committee.

It's virtually impossible to be a self-respecting climate activist and give strong and enthusiastic support to this corporate-polluter-influenced document. According to an initial analysis by the 1Sky campaign, 58% of the proceeds from the potential sale of permits to emit greenhouse gasses would be "polluter giveaways and fossil fuel industry handouts." A Dow Jones Newswire story on May 15th stated that "the proposed legislation would give away up to 85% of the carbon allowances to industry and states, leaving only 15% to be auctioned off and for the government to decide what to do with the proceeds."

Contrast this with the position that President Obama took during his Presidential campaign and that he put forward just a few months ago in his budget authority proposal: putting a price on carbon via a 100% auction of emissions permits. 80-85% of the money raised would be returned to American taxpayers directly by way of tax rebates to help them deal with the rising cost of carbon-based products, and the remainder would be used for clean energy, green jobs, energy efficiency and other programs to help drive the transition to a clean energy economy.

Why is Obama so silent, so acquiescent to this hijacking of climate legislation by the corporate polluters? He needs to be held publicly accountable by all of those who voted for him, all those young people and others, those who believed that we finally had a champion who would lead us in a different direction on this and other issues.

And we have to stop being so "nice."

There's a great song from the civil rights movement, "It Isn't Nice." Written by Malvina Reynolds, it speaks to us from the past about what we need to be doing right now.

end of excerpt.
___________

Thank you Ted Glick for saying what needed to be said.Off and on, for the last five years that I've been actively involved with the climate... more

JanforGore
added this
6 months ago
|
2 comments

Environmentalists attack House global warming compromise

If it's this hard for Democrats to agree on tough global warming curbs, polar icecaps beware.

With the greenest lawmakers in charge and the President cheering them on, the prospects of sweeping controls on greenhouse gases seemed rosy. After a month of fighting among themselves, however, House Democrats announced an agreement Thursday that reflects more about the legislative process than the need to stop the planet from heating up. (See pictures of the effects of climate change.)

The announcement indicates that sponsors have enough Democratic votes to push a bill past its first legislative hurdle, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as early as next week. But the patchwork of concessions necessary to win over champions of industrial and regional interests weakened the initiative, leaving it far short of the global warming gas reductions that scientists insist are necessary to stave off catastrophic climate change.

"It's unacceptable to base this bill on politics, instead of good science," said Greenpeace's Damon Moglen.

The biggest concession to all industrial burners of fossil fuels raised the national cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the original proposal of 5.7 billion metric tons (BMT) by 2020 to 5.9 BMT. The difference may seem nominal until you consider what the elite scientific body, the International Panel on Climate Change, urges for the same timeline — a cap of at least 1.3 BMT lower. Only then will there be 50% chance of avoiding a major warming.

The initial House proposal triggered opposition by many of the biggest polluters, including electric utilities and industries that burn carbon-heavy coal. They would have to obtain permits for each ton of warming gases — chiefly carbon dioxide — limited by the cap. The bill didn't specify how the permits would be allocated or how much those permits might cost. Environmentalists wanted the government to auction them, with the proceeds used to lighten ratepayer utility bills inflated by the higher costs of running power plants and to subsidize energy efficiency measures. (See pictures of this fragile earth.)

But Democrats devised a permit allocation system to line up committee support. To woo lawmakers from districts powered by coal-fired utilities in the Midwest and Southeast, the agreement would give away 35% of the permits to electric utilities until 2025 while they make a transition to cleaner fuels or develop carbon capture technology. Research for such technology would be subsidized by billions of dollars raised from government auctions.

end of excerpt.If it's this hard for Democrats to agree on tough global warming curbs, polar icecaps... more

JanforGore
added this
6 months ago
|
3 comments

Barack Obama – Mass Murderer

Barack Obama – Mass Murderer

By Dan Spielberg

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names"
~ Chinese Proverb

May 13, 2009 "Lew Rockwell" -- If you are a poor, hapless Afghan civilian whose family's bodies were ripped apart by U.S. bombs, does it really make a difference to you if the air "strikes" were ordered by the Moron from Texas, George W Bush, or the Agent of Change, Barack Obama? I would think not. If you were a Pakistani civilian whose village had been bombed by the U.S. would your heart be comforted by the fact that the mad bombers have a new, young, hip "Commander-in-Chief" who makes funny jokes to all the stenographers known as "The Washington Press Corps"? I sincerely doubt that as well.

Barack Obama sold himself to the country as someone who would bring massive "change" to the policies of the U.S. government, but of course when it comes to the favorite activity of that cancerous organism, warring against wholly innocent civilian populations in foreign countries, there will be no change. In fact, even the pleas of the President of the supposedly free and democratic country of Afghanistan are meaningless in the face of the U.S. government's desire to enforce its will on as much of the Earth as possible. I wonder if Americans would feel like they lived in a "free democracy" if the U.S. was occupied by a foreign military power that regularly killed our people and refused to stop? A power that calls refraining from murder as fighting with "one hand tied behind our back" as White House "National Security" Advisor James Jones recently did? I am pretty sure they emphatically would NOT.

This morning's news brings more information to us of "Barry's" latest slaughter, with at least 8 people in Pakistan dead, none of whom ever hurt a single innocent American. If they had hurt any U.S. soldiers in the region, that, of course, is wholly a result of the imperialists in Washington invading the region in the first place. To kill someone for defending themselves against aggression is the definition of tyrannical is it not? Or is the U.S. Government so holy, so infallible and morally upright that any who defy it are to be disposed of, like so much human garbage? Is a country that claims to be Christian really ready to accept the blasphemous idea that the U.S. Government is above any laws, even those of the God that the majority of Americans claim to believe in?

The Chinese proverb that opens this piece is true in all times and places, so let's call Mr. Obama by his real names: Wall Street Stooge, Zionist lickspittle, National Socialist, liar and above all, mass murderBarack Obama – Mass Murderer By Dan Spielberg "The beginning of wisdom is... more

Highr0ller
added this
6 months ago
|
10 comments

Global Food Security Act is a giveaway to GM seed companies

A new bill before the Senate would create a federal mandate for genetically modified (GM) crop research as part of U.S. aid programs, despite evidence that these crops will fail to curb hunger.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the sweet-sounding Global Food Security Act (SB 384) last month with little fanfare. The legislation, also known as the Lugar-Casey Act for the bill's authors Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Robert Casey (D-PA), includes a provision sought after by aid groups that would allow food aid to be purchased — at least in part, locally. The bill aims to reform aid programs to focus on longer-term agricultural development, and restructure aid agencies to better respond to crises. While the focus on hunger is commendable, funding for agricultural development — some $7.7 billion worth of it — under the proposed law would be directed in large part to genetically modified crop research.

The bill is proving to be divisive among aid groups. But according to a new report by Food First that I co-authored, this bill is not an isolated piece of legislation, but a coordinated roll-out of the "new Green Revolution," — a project that includes the Gates Foundation's multi-billion dollar Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). In fact, the legislation is based on an industry-friendly report funded by the Gates Foundation. Initiated by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in fall of 2008 and drafted by the end the year, the hastily prepared report on which the new law is based calls for increasing research funding for biotechnology.

In contrast, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a recent four-year study conducted by the World Bank and the Food and Organization (FAO) in consultation with more than 400 scientists and development experts, reached the opposite conclusions. The IAASTD found that reliance on resource-extractive industrial agriculture is unsustainable, particularly in the face of worsening climate, energy, and water crises. And it concluded that expensive, short-term technical fixes — including GM crops — don't adequately address the complex challenges of the agricultural sector and often exacerbate social and environmental harm. The IAASTD called for land reform, agro-ecological techniques (proven to enhance farmers' adaptive capacity and resilience to environmental stresses such as climate change and water scarcity), building local economies, local control of seeds, and farmer-led participatory breeding programs.

Evidence in favor of these alternatives is building. A 2008 study by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development found that "organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and…it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term." Numerous studies have documented these alternatives' ability not only to raise yield — but reduce poverty and inequality, the root cause of hunger.

The Lugar-Casey Act represents the biggest project in agriculture since the original Green Revolution industrialized farming in the 1950s and 1960s. The first Green Revolution increased global food production by 11% in a very short time, but per capita hunger also increased equally as much. How could this be? Green Revolution technologies are expensive. The fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, and machinery needed to cash in on productive gains put the technology out of reach of most small farmers, increasing the divide between rich and poor in the developing world. Poor farmers were driven out of business and into poverty-stricken urban slums.A new bill before the Senate would create a federal mandate for genetically modified... more

JanforGore
added this
7 months ago
|
23 comments

Individualism vs Collectivism (Proper Role of Government)

Truly inspirational to me and truly annoying to most of you. "Be who you are and... more

plusaf
added this
7 months ago
|
0 comments

tagged w/ US Congress

Price tag for another 'stimulus': $20B

U.S. says climate bill might not pass in time

HELP SAVE HAWAI`I - SAY "NO!" TO THE AKAKA BILL

Strengthen Safe Drinking Water Act, comment deadline August 12th

FREE HAWAI`I TV - "CAN THIS BE HAPPENING?"

Spying on the Home Front

Chesapeake Climate Action Network on ACES bill: We need more

Is this bill the best we can hope for?

Tell Congress it must do better on climate bill

Obama Visits Nazi Concentration Camp

Fax Congress: make the Waxman-Markey bill stronger!

US won't speed up emissions cuts: top climate negotiator

PM Harper sees no threat to Canadian tar sands from US climate bill

Al Gore's statement regarding passage of climate bill from House Energy committee

Reforestation would play big role in preventing climate change

The climate movement is too nice regarding climate bill

Environmentalists attack House global warming compromise

Barack Obama – Mass Murderer

Global Food Security Act is a giveaway to GM seed companies

Individualism vs Collectivism (Proper Role of Government)

current videos

Porn 2.0

Last.fm Jumps on the Video Bandwagon!

Newest, Dopest Jams

YouTube's Most Hardcore Screamers

20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

This Week On Vanguard: Porn 2.0

about current

watch current

the people are talking

the basics

take us with you

tools

stay in touch

© 2009 Current TV, LLC
All Rights Reserved