Considering Big Polluter did shortcuts on drilling Deepwater Horizon, do we really trust them to do "open-heart surgery" on their own cheating failure?
That's a big negatory there. Especially since Blossoming Plumes can't guarantee even this will contain all the oil.
And Ed Markey trusted BP before?
>>There is particular acrimony that BP's initial estimate of the leak at 5,000 barrels of oil a day dramatically understated the scale of the flow, which is now put at 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day. Ed Markey, the Democratic chairman of a Congressional energy committee investigating the disaster, said BP was "either lying or they were incompetent".<<
Gee, Ed, it took you now to believe BP might be lying?
While you're at learning the truth, can you give us a tougher carbon-control bill than you did earlier this year?
Meanwhile, a nutbar like David Vitter draws the wrong analogies after the blowout.
No, the Deepwater Horizon is not like a plane crash in general. Rather, it's like the Polish government's disastrous plane crash, where you learn the lessons of not flying a 40-year-old plane model, not letting passengers in the cockpit and other things.
Showing posts with label Markey (Ed). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Markey (Ed). Show all posts
May 30, 2010
May 21, 2009
Markey-Waxman climate bill clears first hurdle – of many
On a 33-25 vote, basically party-line, it was voted out of the House Energy and Committee Committee. But, it’s got plenty of hurdles still, mainly bad.
First, House Ag members supposedly (and after the EPA showed ethanol wasn’t at all carbon-friendly) want to cut ethanol more slack. Yeccch. Big Ag joins Big Coal and Big Oil at the hog trough.
Second, the Senate still lurks.
Third, a good hurdle, but one that could be a derailer. Some members of House Ways and Means want a carbon tax instead of cap-and-trade. Especially since most the initial permits are being given away, not sold, and probably nothing was learned from the EU, this is a great “hurdle.” But… (see Big Coal/Oil above) this could indeed be a sticking point.
And, even before posting this, the first Gang Green-type enviro group had already hit my e-mail inbox. Surprisingly, League of Conservation Voters did NOT ask for money to “continue the fight.”
Frankly, as with healthcare, we’ll probably get something where the good is the enemy of the better. And, with pseudo-rhetorical flourishes, Just.Another.Politician.™ will sign it into law.
First, House Ag members supposedly (and after the EPA showed ethanol wasn’t at all carbon-friendly) want to cut ethanol more slack. Yeccch. Big Ag joins Big Coal and Big Oil at the hog trough.
Second, the Senate still lurks.
Third, a good hurdle, but one that could be a derailer. Some members of House Ways and Means want a carbon tax instead of cap-and-trade. Especially since most the initial permits are being given away, not sold, and probably nothing was learned from the EU, this is a great “hurdle.” But… (see Big Coal/Oil above) this could indeed be a sticking point.
And, even before posting this, the first Gang Green-type enviro group had already hit my e-mail inbox. Surprisingly, League of Conservation Voters did NOT ask for money to “continue the fight.”
Frankly, as with healthcare, we’ll probably get something where the good is the enemy of the better. And, with pseudo-rhetorical flourishes, Just.Another.Politician.™ will sign it into law.
May 18, 2009
Krugman gives Obama et al a pass on environmentalism
Paul Krugman says its better to accept the Waxman-Markey bill on climate change rather than fight for something better that might not get passed.
But, for a Krugman column, it’s got a lot of errors, primarily of omission.
1. This bill has just been released. Who knows how eviscerated it will be six weeks from now?
2. Krugman overlooks how Europeans initially blew cap-and-trade.
3. Krugman ignores that Team Obama has already promised to give away, rather than sell, most cap-and-trade permit, rather than sell them, and to give many to big polluters.
4. Could somebody game cap-and-trade? One commenter to his column suggests “Enron.”
5. He overlooks the contrary to his position, that sometimes the good can be the enemy of the best, or the better.
Read the whole column and judge for yourself, but I think he’s wrong.
But, for a Krugman column, it’s got a lot of errors, primarily of omission.
1. This bill has just been released. Who knows how eviscerated it will be six weeks from now?
2. Krugman overlooks how Europeans initially blew cap-and-trade.
3. Krugman ignores that Team Obama has already promised to give away, rather than sell, most cap-and-trade permit, rather than sell them, and to give many to big polluters.
4. Could somebody game cap-and-trade? One commenter to his column suggests “Enron.”
5. He overlooks the contrary to his position, that sometimes the good can be the enemy of the best, or the better.
Read the whole column and judge for yourself, but I think he’s wrong.
April 23, 2009
Team Obama distancing from Waxman-Markey climate bill?
So it would seem, with the equivalent of a “my dog ate my homework” reason for why the Obama Administration still hasn’t endorsed the Waxman-Markey bill. Still studying details on a 648-page bill isn’t much excuse when the bill came out last month.
Now, the bill has its flaws, to be sure. I wouldn’t give away ANY cap permits myself; all would be sold. It’s not clear on how utilities, etc. would be regulated to keep them from gouging customers.
And not using carbon taxes at all is bad policy.
But, it’s a good starting point, nonetheless.
Now, the bill has its flaws, to be sure. I wouldn’t give away ANY cap permits myself; all would be sold. It’s not clear on how utilities, etc. would be regulated to keep them from gouging customers.
And not using carbon taxes at all is bad policy.
But, it’s a good starting point, nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)