Senate passes Chuck Hagel's "meaningless" voluntary pollution caps!

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200164_pf.html

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 22, 2005; 7:56 AM

<>Senators backed away from urging stronger measures to reduce heat-trapping greenhouse pollution on Tuesday. Instead, by a better than two-to-one margin, they endorsed a climate policy that relies on voluntary emission reductions by industry and focuses on curtailing the growth of pollution rather than reducing it.

<>Environmentalists had hoped the Senate might adopt a proposal that would include mandatory pollution caps that, while less stringent than those required by the Kyoto climate accord, would still reduce emissions. They generally favored a proposal offered by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., that calls for requiring industry to bring greenhouse pollution back to where it was five years ago by 2010.

The Senate was expected to vote on the McCain-Lieberman proposal Wednesday, but even its supporters said it has little chance of being approved.

McCain, who has tangled with the administration over climate policy, called Hagel's provision "meaningless" because it has no requirements for industries to reduce emissions. While it authorizes new programs, it does not guarantee they will be funded by Congress.

____________________________

Call or write your Senators today and let them know you do not support voluntary pollution caps and urge them to vote for the McCain-Lieberman bill. This amendment comes up for a vote this afternoon, after a three hour debate.

[wtmusic]

1. Back to the future

"requiring industry to bring greenhouse pollution back to where it was five years ago by 2010 (in five years)..."

[flpoljunkie]

2. And our Senators won't even vote for this watered down provision!

We are truly a country run by the special interests' lobbyists.

How will we ever break their stranglehold on our government? Public financing is the only way, and the Rethugs have successfully demonized that idea.

But, boy, wouldn't it be nice if we owned them and not the special interests?

[Dr.Phool]

3. Voluntary Regulations

Mean they will volunteer to do absolutely nothing.

[MichiganVote]

4. What the hell

To big business, voluntary means who the fuck cares, go ahead and do whatever you want.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Bingo!

[flpoljunkie]

6. McCain-Lieberman failed 38-60 with 6 R's voting AYE and 11D's voting NO!

Roll call not up yet, but the Republicans who voted FOR this bill were Chafee, Collins, Gregg, Lugar, McCain and Snowe.

It is interesting to note that this same bill garned 43 Ayes and only 55 Nays in late 2003!

Not a good sign--in fact, it is really discouraging. We must hold Congress accountable for their failure to act to do something tangible about global warming.

[Idioteque]

7. Feingold and Boxer voted NO on McCain-Lieberman...

...I'd really like to know why.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Senate roll call vote up now. Ethanol Senators voting No, but CA, too?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00148

NAYs ---60

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

[flpoljunkie]

9. Those 38 Senators voting for McCain-Lieberman amendment.

YEAs ---38

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

[flpoljunkie]

10. No, I do not really get it. Why did ethanol states vote No?

Purpose of the Amendment: To provide for a program to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

Californians hate cost of using ethanol. Ethanol uses a lot of energy to produce, doesn't it?

[Mass]

12. Ethanol does not reduce greenhouse gases

You need non-carbon based energy for that. What the bill promoted more than anything is nuclear.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Ah, thank you. Dubya really pushing "nukular" enough to make me say NO!

[Mass]

11. Probably because of the subventions to the nuclear industry

that were included in the bill.

This bill was probably a very tough call for those who really cares about environment as the original goal of the amendment was more than good, but some of the provisions included in the amendment are less good.

[flpoljunkie]

14. So then the bill was not really the same as the one voted down in 2003.

[Mass]

15. Not exactly

the subsventions were apparently added at the last minute, from what I understand.