Dems Crafting Bill That Could "WIPE OUT" California's Landmark Global Warming law? wtf?

[leftchick]

:grr:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/05/MNG44Q7OS01.DTL


-- House Democrats, in their first draft of new energy legislation, would wipe out California's landmark global warming law -- despite their California speaker's promises that her party would use the state as a model to combat climate change.

The legislation would pre-empt California and 11 other states from implementing laws requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across their fleets. The bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from granting the states waivers to put their climate change rules into effect.

<snip>


The move was an ironic twist on a familiar story for California. When Republicans ran the House, they regularly tried to pre-empt the state's laws on food safety labeling, the minimum wage and consumer privacy -- and Democrats often cried foul. But this new effort is being led by some of the Democratic majority's most senior lawmakers.

However, the pre-emption plan might never see the light of day -- if, as expected, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and lawmakers from other affected states use their clout to quash the idea before it gets out of committee.

Pelosi was unavailable for comment Monday, but her staff termed the measure a draft that needed much more work.

The proposal was written by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat who represents a coal-producing district in southwest Virginia and chairs the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee charged with crafting climate change legislation. The full committee's chairman, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime ally of the auto industry, also played a key role in putting together the new legislation.

Boucher's and Dingell's offices declined to comment on the proposal.

:argh:

[monktonman]

1. effing liars

every last one.
Writing letter to my three liars now.
Congressman Liar
Congressman half-truth
representative double-talk

[EFerrari]

25. Who, the paper or the Dems? What I notice is they get Nancy

coming and going in this article.

[monktonman]

37. The paper AND the Dems

The thing is, I dont vote for the paper.
The post or the times or CNN and Faux never made promises to me.
The Dems did.
Effing liars!!! every one.

[EFerrari]

38. Imho, we'd do well to remember that the whore media reframe

what the Dems do and, I hear you.

[monktonman]

39. Ok blame the media???????

are you kidding me????????
The media DONT CAST VOTES
Our congressmen do

Blame the media?????????????
your joking right?

[EFerrari]

40. No, I'm saying that the media has influence on public opinion --

something you already know, I'm sure.

[monktonman]

42. What does that have to do with this bill??

I'm not understanding how the media is forcing the Dems
to write a bill that takes away a states right
to form its own emmissions policies.

What does the media have to do with that???????????????

[magellan]

2. Two sides of the same coin

Party doesn't matter. The CORPORATIONS run this country -- hell, they run the world. Nothing of significance will change until THAT does.

[KittyWampus]

17. Um, this is about TWO Democrats- Boucher & Dingell. How about responding to the facts

and the actual article which pretty clearly states that boucher & Dingell's attempts won't work with Pelosi at the Helm?

[leftchick]

3. I Am So Fucking MAD!!!!!

especially after reading this just this morning...


http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2609305.ece


Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 03 June 2007

Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.

They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.

News of the studies - which are bound to lead to calls for even tougher anti-pollution measures than have yet been contemplated - comes as the leaders of the world's most powerful nations prepare for the most crucial meeting yet on tackling climate change.

The issue will be top of the agenda of the G8 summit which opens in the German Baltic resort of Heiligendamm on Wednesday, placing unprecedented pressure on President George Bush finally to agree to international measures.

[dysfunctional press]

4. face it, we're toast...

sit back and enjoy the show.

i intend to.

[leftchick]

5. Not Me

If I did not have two young children perhaps I would not feel as passionate about this issue. It boggles my mind that ANYONE who has offspring is not having a fucking panic attack over Global Warming LIKE I AM! Dems and Repukes alike!


:cry:

[dysfunctional press]

9. we made the conscious choice NOT to have children...

and we appreciate that decision more and more every day.

[leftchick]

10. I understand

totally.

[corkhead]

24. ditto for me. My decision was forged by the RayGun "Revolution"

[John Q. Citizen]

16. I have three young kids and it saddens and angers me to see what is being

left of the earth for them and thier children should they have any.

That and the demise of freedom, the rise of fascism, the stolen elections have made me quite concerned for what kind of world my kids will get to inhabit.

[Critters2]

23. I don't have children, but

every time I baptize a child, I--and the whole congregation--vow to help in the upbringing of that child and to look out for hir welfare. I take those promises VERY seriously, and I worry about the planet we're leaving for them and the future. I also sponsor a child--a boy now 15 years old--in Mexico. I take that seriously, and worry about his future, too.

So, you don't have to have given birth to worry about this. Though I can see how those who have might feel so more strongly.

Keep fighting the good fight--for your kids, for everyone's kids! :pals:

[Squatch]

6. States' RIghts...

didn't we fight a civil war or something over that a couple years ago? (At least according to one side of the conflict)

[leftchick]

7. superseded by CORPORATE RIGHTS!

apparently. omg I am fit to be tied! :argh:

[leftchick]

8. I am pretty shocked at the lack of outrage here

The most important issue of my/our children's lives and we are letting our representatives suck from the corporate teet yet again with no complaint??

:(

[KittyWampus]

18. Well, you left out the subtitle "Pelosi aides say plan needs work" and some of us read the bit

which explains this is the attempt of TWO Democrats and it will go nowheres with Pelosi in charge.

But it is a great idea for people to inundate Boucher and Dingell with outraged emails!

They should know their dedication to corporate welfare is dangerous in this instance and inexcusable.

[Ladyhawk]

28. Don't be.

Don't you know we're not supposed to question our Democratic leaders? This is a site for Democrats. You're not supposed to criticize Dems.

:sarcasm:

[leftchick]

11. "It's a double whammy"

<snip>

The bill would add language to the Clean Air Act stating that the Environmental Protection Agency administrator could not grant states a waiver for their vehicle emissions rules if "such state standards are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." In other words, any state rules seeking to curb global warming would be null and void.

The legislation also appears to limit the power of the agency to set federal climate change rules -- even though the Supreme Court in April ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants and the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate vehicle emissions or explain why it won't.

The draft bill says the power of the EPA is limited to requiring reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets fuel economy standards, must regulate vehicle emissions.

Sierra Club attorney David Bookbinder, in a legal analysis prepared for environmental groups, said the bill amounted to an overturning of part of the Supreme Court's decision.

Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said, "It's a double whammy. It not only preempts California and the rest of the states from moving forward (with new climate rules), it prevents the EPA from moving forward as well."

[Downtown Hound]

12. I'm getting more fed up with our party every day

I know it's not all Democrats, but it's enough of them to where it's like, what do we really have to do to get real progressive legislation in this country? Leave the party and the Republicans win. Vote for Dems and the corporations win. They've got us in a headlock, and I see no way out of it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. It's time to register Independent

[dkofos]

14. Nader was right!

There is little difference between the two parties.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Wow, misleading headline much? Give me a break.

It looks like all the people responding to this OP with righteous "NADER WUZ RIGHT!!!1111" posts didn't even bother to read the article linked in the OP, which VERY EXPLICITLY STATES that what will VERY LIKELY HAPPEN is that "as expected, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and lawmakers from other affected states use their clout to quash the idea before it gets out of committee."

So apparently two House Dems from states which have industries affected by this law are trying to block it. They're putting their district's pork above the environment. Very bad on them and I hope people write their offices and give them hell. But to insinuate that this is the "Dems" in general doing this is not only disingenuous and misleading but flat-out false.

But let's not let truth get in the way of a good cathartic "Dems sold us out!!!!!1111" rant. I hope everyone on this thread has fun with their blind bashing.

[blondeatlast]

19. Yep--we let ourselves fall victim to media manipulation.

Note how often the word "Democrat" is used in place of "Congressman So and So."

A recent example is William Jefferson's scandal--repeatedly referred to as a Democrat, but when Tom Delay was indicted, he was Congressman Tom Delay--with virtually no reference to his political party.

Until we learn that we are being manipulated, we'll continue to lose--and big.

I read the article too--the headline is manipulative, the article far clearer. And how many on this thread took the bait hook, line, and sinker? Is it any wonder we lose?

[TheWatcher]

33. We lose because you keep falling for the false Left/Right Paradigm

I'm sorry, neither party has The Will Of The People as a priority. I am sorry you cannot see it, I am sorry you cannot accept it, and I am sorry you desperately need to keep believing that 2008 will change everything, and that the Dems will flip on a switch and start working for you again.

NOTHING will change in 2008, but our party will keep putting on a grand Dog And Pony Show to keep you addicted to the idea they "feel your pain."

And you will keep falling for it.

Until you wake up.

[leftchick]

34. yep

:thumbsup:

[John Q. Citizen]

20. The basic underlying problem is the lack of political pluralism in our system.

As Kurt Vonegutt so brilliantly wrote in one of his essays, people aren't just red or blue.

The largest block in the US are the people who don't vote. It's easy (and wrong) to attribute this to "those stupid, apathetic people."

The truth is that most people realize the system is broken, and voting doesn't make a whit of difference in terms of correcting this broken system. In fact, it just reinforces the broken aspects of the system.

I have always voted and probably always will, but that doesn't make me smarter than those who have decided that it's a waste of time.

You, the Dems, and the Repos can ingore the truth that most people are sick of the power polararity of the 2 party trap. You can blame the largest block of the electorate or you can ignore them. But you are in the minority of public opinion on this issue.

If the Dems could get beyond their short term power polarity self interest to help push for some real reform, it would help them immensely in the long run. Even such an easy and historical solutions as fusion voting (still legal in New York and one or two other states, it's been outlawed by the Dems and the Repos everywhere else) would greatly enhance the possibility of political pluralism. Same for new ideas, such as instant run off voting.

[leftchick]

21. excellent post

It is indeed broken. And I am not holding my breath for Nancy to save the day. The Iraq vote tells me all I need to know about her clout.

[n2doc]

22. Here it is, even more clearly laid out- this plan is DOA

Pelosi backs state auto pollution rules
By ERICA WERNER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., right, accompanied by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, June 1, 2007 to discuss global warming. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will oppose a proposal by fellow Democrats that would block her state of California and others from imposing landmark greenhouse gas reductions on automakers.

Pelosi issued a statement late Tuesday, a day after the measure tucked into a draft bill by Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., came to light. Boucher's plan drew angry opposition from environmentalists, California legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration.

"Any legislation that comes to the House floor must increase our energy independence, reduce global warming, invest in new technologies to achieve these goals and create good jobs in America," Pelosi said.

"Any proposal that affects California's landmark efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or eliminate the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions will not have my support."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Energy_Pelosi.html

I was outraged (and posted) when I saw the first article the OP has but someone responded with this second article and I feel much, much better. A speaker has a huge amount of clout and this plan will not go anywhere.

[EFerrari]

26. The San Francisco Chronicle is no friend of ours. n/t

[glitch]

30. And you call yourself wildeyed

A mistake to take the corpse media at face value, especially the headline and first 3 paragraphs.

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. Even the wildeyed are capable of rationality from time to time

;)

[berni_mccoy]

27. State V. State... using the Fed. Gov't and Congress as the beating stick. Pelosi better shut this

kind of crap down.

[LifeDuringWartime]

29. lemme guess

those two dems won't be getting reelected next time around?

[mzmolly]

31. Perspective please? TWO Democrats crafted the legislation, and it's not expected to make it

out of committee.

"...if, as expected, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and lawmakers from other affected states use their clout to quash the idea before it gets out of committee."

[leftchick]

32. "needs work"

the next sentence.....

<snip>

Pelosi was unavailable for comment Monday, but her staff termed the measure a draft that needed much more work.


.... just a little work but it sounds like they are sticking with the draft. No clout to quash if you ask me. Much like that Iraq vote a couple of weeks ago.

[mzmolly]

35. I'll judge the "Democrats" when they deserve it, but I won't let the desperate

media piss me off anymore than I am already inclined. ;)

[depakid]

36. Just goes to show you

that the influence of money and power corrupts Democrats and Republicans alike.

[mzmolly]

43. Hate to say "I told ya so," but.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=98920&mesg_id=98920

;) Good news!

[nam78_two]

46. Thats good to know,nt

[Jack Rabbit]

44. John Dingaling. Wouldn't you know?

He's been trying to pre-empt California anti-emissions laws since I was in High School -- forty years ago.

Pardon me for saying this about a Democrat, but I don't appreciate his efforts.

[nam78_two]

45. Dingell...I will be glad to see the last of that guy.nt