Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act
<< from an email >>
As Chairman of the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have made it my priority to stop global warming and improve our environment. As part of that effort, I am pleased to let you that I am supporting a bill by Senator Dianne Feinstein to improve passenger automobile fuel economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
This legislation is known as the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, S.357.
This bill would increase the fuel economy standards, known as CAFE standards, for SUVs and other light duty trucks and would increase the combined fleet average for all automobiles from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2019.
When CAFE standards were first established in 1975, light trucks made up only a small percentage of total vehicles on the road and were mostly used by farmers and business. The standard for them and for SUVs was set at a level that does not reflect the fact that today these make up more than half of the new car sales in America. This bill would go a long way to correcting this discrepancy.
Our bill would also significantly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide -- the largest single cause of global warming -- from being released into the atmosphere. If enacted, this legislation would result in a reduction of 350 million tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted by cars by 2025. This would be roughly equivalent to removing 60 million cars from our roads in one year.
Finally, S.357 seeks to actually reduce our nation’s fuel consumption, making us less dependent on foreign oil and reducing the demand for new domestic sources. In large measure, our legislation is a step forward in creating a sound energy policy for our nation that will also increase our national security.
I am pleased to join a bipartisan group of Senators supporting this important legislation and look forward to its passage.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Again, how did the Earth warm to the Medieval Warm Period then cool into the Little Ice Age?
I don't think that's looking at the bigger picture and is too recent.
Yes, there seems to be a lot of contradictory information out there. Which, IMO, is all the more reason to put resources into the scientific research. I'd rather be looking at this potential problem proactively given the number of legit scientists that are saying there is something to this, than to put our heads in the sand without further information.
now that looks a credible good source.
Did you try and do a little research on the Environmental Research Foundation?
...there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.
no consensus. ok. not flat out denying it either.
sponsoring disinformation about global warming... promoting fossil fuel consumption...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=15399658&txt2find=chevron
you sure that didn't come from Karl Rove's handbook? :)
...a handfull of disgruntled critics, their tiny voices amplified by a billion-dollar corporation...
hit nail on the head with that one if you ask me.
This is the next logical step. Let's hope they keep their backbone.
again, when you read something you have to factor in the source. this guy just looks like a local smuck who likes writing opinion pieces for the local paper... I don't see anything about his background, experience, education... feel free to provide that info. And again, author makes a difference...
If Albert Einstein wrote an article on physics and Mickey Rooney wrote an article on physics, which would you give more credence to?
You probably read that many in a week :)
"misled"... why don't they just say "lied"
GOP Opposition to Bush Plan Forms
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Breaking ranks, a small band of House Republicans declared their opposition to a troop buildup in Iraq on Wednesday, and President Bush appeared resigned to passage of a nonbinding measure disapproving of his decision.
"I'm going to make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops," the president said, looking past this week's debate toward congressional action next month on his request for nearly $100 billion for the military.
Bush spoke at a White House news conference timed — coincidentally or not — for the hour that Republican critics of his war policies took their turn in a marathon debate on the House floor.
"I am personally very high on President Bush, but on the matter of troop escalation, I am not in agreement," said Republican Rep. Howard Coble of North Carolina.
"I insist that we do not maintain an eternal presence in Iraq, if for no other reason than the cost to the taxpayers, which has been astronomically unbelievable," he said. He also noted the war has cost more than 3,100 U.S. troops their lives.
Coble was one of fewer than a dozen Republicans to swing behind the measure. It declares that Congress "disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush ... to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."
The 95-word measure adds that "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States armed forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."
By early evening, only one Democrat, Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia, had announced he would vote in opposition.
Approval is expected on Friday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has announced plans to try for a vote on an identical bill in the next few weeks. Prospects there are uncertain because Republicans have said they will also demand a vote on an alternative measure that says Congress should neither cut nor eliminate funds for troops in the field.
Democrats took control of Congress after elections last fall that were shaped in large measure by public opposition to the war. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has described the nonbinding measure as the first step in a longer campaign to end U.S. participation in the nearly four-year-old conflict.
Several Democrats have said they favor cutting off money as a way to accomplish that, and Bush was eager to lay down a marker on that issue.
"They have every right to express their opinion, and it is a nonbinding resolution," he said of the measure before the House. But looking ahead, he added that Congress soon "is going to be able to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding, a bill providing emergency funding for our troops. ... We have a responsibility , all of us here in Washington, to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the resources and flexibility they need to prevail."
Pelosi and Reid sent Bush a letter citing reports the Army lacks enough advanced armored kits to protect all Humvees from roadside bombs. "In addition, we understand that existing shortages of trucks and other crucial equipment such as jamming devices, radios and other gear will only be exacerbated by the surge," they wrote.
The lawmakers raised the issue later with the president at a White House meeting. One aide suggested afterward that Bush's spending request could be rewritten to require that any troops deployed to Iraq be fully equipped.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who heads a House subcommittee that controls defense spending, has said he intends to require that any units headed to Iraq meet the Army's highest readiness level. Congress also could try to slow the deployment of additional troops by curtailing the Pentagon's practice of extending the duty tours of personnel who have reached the end of their scheduled time in the war zone.
Republican leaders predict that as many as two dozen or so GOP member could vote for the nonbinding repudiation of the troop increase. Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina led the GOP rebels during debate on the House floor.
Jones, a seventh-term lawmaker whose district includes the Marines' Camp Lejeune, said he had spoken out four years ago against the plan to invade Iraq. "I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat, al-Qaida," he said.
"For young men and women who are brave enough to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, then we as members of Congress must be brave enough and informed to start a dialogue in Damascus, in Tehran, in the entire region to hasten peace," said Rep. Wayne Gilchrist, R-Md., calling for a diplomatic effort along the lines recommended by the Iraq Study Group that recently issued a gloomy report on the state of affairs in Iraq.
"I will support this resolution because I believe that the surge will be unsuccessful without a comprehensive, diplomatic strategy to engage the international community and turn responsibility over to the Iraqi government," added Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del.
In a criticism of House Democratic leaders, though, Castle quickly added he was disappointed they had denied lawmakers a chance to vote on an alternative measure drafted by Republicans.
The GOP leadership had sought a vote on a measure opposing any efforts to cut off money for the war. Democratic leaders initially said they would allow them to proceed. They changed their minds, though, in what Republicans said was an attempt to hide a deep divide on the money issue among Democrats.
Democrats did not deny that would have been the case. But they said Republicans will be able to put all lawmakers on record on the issue when the $100 billion military spending bill comes to the House in March.
Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., provoked a sharp response from Democrats when she said she opposes the increase in troops but would not support the measure criticizing it. She said that while it pledges to protect the troops in Iraq and those who have gone, it makes no mention of the thousands yet to be deployed.
"What about the five brigades of young Americans who are now preparing their families and packing their gear to deploy? What about them? What are you saying to them? Will we buy body armor for them? Will we have armored Humvees for them?" she asked.
Wilson's comments brought Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., to the House chamber for a hurried rebuttal.
"If the commander in chief has sent them there, we will support them," he said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/14/national/w134306S78.DTL&type=politic...
Industry CEOs testify for emissions limits
They get a mixed reception on Boxer's Senate committee
Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
(02-14) 04:00 PST Washington -- California Sen. Barbara Boxer enlisted the help of several Fortune 500 company executives Tuesday to argue that mandatory greenhouse gas limits won't damage the U.S. economy.
Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, called business leaders from PG&E, DuPont and BP America to testify before Congress about their support for economy-wide emissions limits to fight global warming.
"All these companies agree that we need to act now to enact a mandatory program to address global warming," Boxer said at the hearing.
The testimony comes at a key moment in the debate over climate change in Washington, when the fight over whether global warming is real is waning and the momentum for legislative action is growing.
Congress is so keenly interested in the topic that there were three separate climate change hearings Tuesday on Capitol Hill. But lawmakers from both parties are still conflicted about how to regulate greenhouse gases without hurting U.S. businesses and consumers.
Boxer set out to address those concerns by inviting corporate leaders who back legislative action. The executives at Tuesday's hearing were all members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of 10 companies and four environmental groups that joined together last month to announce their strategy to combat global warming.
"Our organization is here because we share a view that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue of our time," said Peter Darbee, chairman and CEO of PG&E Co., California's largest gas and electric utility.
"Our economy is the world's locomotive, and (the group) believes that it's critical to get that engine pulling in the right direction on climate change."
But several top Republican senators, who oppose climate change legislation, accused the CEOs of lobbying for new regulations that could benefit their companies.
"More and more companies that wish to profit on the backs of consumers are coming out the woodwork to endorse climate proposals in hopes of forcing customers to buy their products or be penalized," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the panel's top Republican, referring to the companies as "climate profiteers."
Critics believe a "cap-and-trade" system on carbon emissions could help companies such as PG&E, which have invested heavily in low-carbon energy sources such as natural gas, while penalizing competitors that rely on high-carbon sources such as coal. Other firms, such as BP and General Electric, have spent years developing solar and wind technologies and could benefit under rules that reward clean energy producers.
But Boxer lashed out at Republicans for criticizing companies that are investing in renewable energy technology and taking a lead role in confronting global warming.
"It's quite unfair to cast aspersions on people who actually may have come to a decision that there's a need for corporate responsibility," she said.
Darbee insisted PG&E was not lobbying to boost its profits, but to take some of the practices the company developed in California to the national level.
He noted that California has kept its energy usage flat over the last three decades -- while the nation's has risen by about 50 percent -- by investing in energy efficiency. By doing so, the state avoided having to build 24 new large power plants that would have spewed an additional 125 million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Darbee pointed to a recent McKinsey & Co. consultants' study that found worldwide energy usage could be cut by 50 percent over 15 years through energy efficiency. "And we can do it using today's technology," he added.
DuPont Chairman and CEO Chad Holliday said his company, which is investing in new biofuels, and other firms want to be part of the solution to global warming, but are waiting to see what Congress will do.
"We see a whole suite of technologies to solve these problems, and we think the uncertainty of what regulations will do are holding companies back," Holliday said.
Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, who could be a key swing vote on climate change legislation in the committee, said the testimony by corporate leaders could influence many lawmakers to reconsider their opposition to regulation.
"You've got my attention," Warner said.
E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/14/MNG9MO45TK1.DTL&type=politics
State Senate OKs resolution opposing troop increase
Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
(02-14) 04:00 PST Sacramento -- California's Senate became the first state legislative body in the nation to oppose President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, passing a resolution Monday urging Congress and Bush not to escalate U.S. involvement in the war.
The nonbinding resolution, which will be sent to Congress if it clears the Assembly, was approved by the 40-member Senate on a largely party-line vote of 22-14. Voting "no" were 13 Republicans and one Southern California Democrat, Lou Correa of Orange County.
"We talk about our troops every day, yet our support and confidence in this war has waned," said the resolution's author, Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco. "It is time to put California on record to truly support our troops."
Opponents countered that the resolution opposing further troop buildup in Iraq would harm morale and embolden America's enemies.
The resolution, in effect, is "denying our soldiers the reinforcements they desperately need," said Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Northridge (Los Angeles County), in opposition. 'That is absolutely the worst thing we can do."
No Assembly vote has been scheduled on the resolution.
The liberal grassroots group MoveOn.org and other progressive political organizations are pushing statehouses across the country to approve resolutions opposing the proposed troop surge.
Resolutions have been introduced in about 20 states.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/14/MNGEVO47I31.DTL&type=politics
U.S., Britain ranked last in child welfare
U.N. study of wealthy nations cites economic inequality, poor family support
BERLIN - The United States and Britain ranked at the bottom of a U.N. survey of child welfare in 21 wealthy countries that assessed everything from infant mortality to whether children ate dinner with their parents or were bullied at school.
The Netherlands, followed by Sweden, Denmark and Finland, finished at the top of the rankings, while the U.S. was 20th and Britain 21st, according to the report released Wednesday by UNICEF in Germany.
One of the study’s researchers, Jonathan Bradshaw, said children fared worse in the U.S. and Britain — despite high overall levels of national wealth — because of greater economic inequality and poor levels of public support for families.
“What they have in common are very high levels of inequality, very high levels of child poverty, which is also associated with inequality, and in rather different ways poorly developed services to families with children,” said Bradshaw, a professor of social policy at the University of York in Britain.
“They don’t invest as much in children as continental European countries do,” he said, citing the lack of day care services in both countries and poorer health coverage and preventative care for children in the U.S.
U.S. officials questioned the comparisons made by the study, while Britain said it failed take into account recent social improvements.
Risky ways
The United States finished last in the health and safety category, based on infant mortality, vaccinations for childhood diseases, deaths from injuries and accidents before age 19, and whether children reported fighting in the past year or being bullied in the previous two months.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17155848/
Peace has its victories, but it takes brave men and women to win them.
I especially like that one.
so who is Don Snyder but some local guy who likes to write opinions for the local paper? I couldn't find anything on him other than other local opinion articles.
exactly... looks questionable to me...
most corrupt and incompetant as well
what I don't understand is why there aren't calls for heads to roll... rumsfeld, cheney and bush
yeap... on the surface seemly opposite, but really the same
fortunately posters on this board aren't proportionally representative of americans as a whole most of whom have finally woken up to the deceptions of this white house... for a while there I was worried
bushenomics... channel wealth into the hands of the very elite at the expense of everyone else
it is. and it truly expresses how I feel these days. the more I know and learn how things work, the more I realize it's true and how uterly wrong wars are... nobody "wins" except the arms manufacturers.
me too
yes, I think it's valid to question the source. It's important to know who's funding and supporting these sites. You're naive if you think that large energy companies aren't doing everything they can to dispute global warming
Sure, some of those recently jumping on the global warming band wagon are doing so out of self interest. But I also believe alot of folks have been convinced of the seriousness of this issue and now realize that we must address it.
another interesting site... and I found something curious there... a supposed survey by Senator Barbara Boxer
http://ga4.org/pacforachange/gw_agenda.html
but why would it not be on her website? why can't I find it on her website? I"ve emailed the link to her office to see if it's really hers... I'll post back when I get an answser.
http://boxer.senate.gov/
yeap :)
all I did was post your own words back to you and look how defensive you got. think about it.
it's just a crack up that you accuse someone of "Two posts this month and both cheap shots at me ..." given your history ROFL!
95% of the posts you make are condescending, rude and belittling ....
Why not grade your own for truth ... ZERO ..............
You are old enough to know better.
please learn to read and interpret what you read.
must every post from you be an emotional outburst, full of gloom and doom?
geeesh, why not change your alias to 'the sheep'?
At least, you could be an honest bigot!
You're an idiot!
I can't believe you let your personal hatred overshadow what you know in your heart is true.
quite impressed with yourself, eh?
What are you drinking tonight?
you're obviously either spiking that tea ...... or smoking something along with it...
Did you swallow a Viagra tonight?
You might want to read it ................ Then again ,,,, probably YOU wouldn't
I'm the one who reminds you of the integrity you lack ..... who demonstrates the spine you never developed ... the one who displays the character you totally lack ..........
Seems you are too worried about getting your views out to bother with finding out what anyone else thinks about anything......... or more importantly, to ask WHY they think it .....
You should be ashamed to be so childish ..... or stupid ...... or both.
You egghead
are you for real?
Commmunist that you are.
you freak
Dude, your head is not screwed on correctly
You are one weird dude
you undoubtedly have the thickest skull I've ever encountered ...
Do I have to post everything at a third grade level for you to understand?
are you truly that ill informed ........
or just purposely playing dumb?
Can't you see how ridiculous that sounds?
You guys are sounding like a broken record
Think just once you could actually 'read' a post before you commence your 'rebuttal'??
Nah, that'd require some personal honesty and integrity on your part
Get your head out of your kazoo
IF you understood the meaning or the word 'shame' I'd tell you that you should be showing some ...... but you don't ...
Requires more honesty than you can muster to actually respond, eh?
<< all the above are quotes from your posts >>
Court Blocks Moving American’s Case to Iraq Court
<< good news is that court blocked Bush admin... just unbelievable to me that this administration thinks it can just take american citizens and send them to another country for trial. Bush is a wannabe dictator. >>
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 10, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (AP) — A federal appeals court blocked the Pentagon on Friday from transferring an imprisoned American to an Iraqi court to face charges that he supported terrorists and insurgents.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously that the prisoner, Shawqi Omar, a citizen of Jordan and the United States, had a right to argue for his release before a United States court.
By a 2-to-1 vote, the panel also upheld an injunction issued last year by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of Federal District Court here that blocked the military from turning over Mr. Omar, 45, for trial in an Iraqi court.
“This is a case about whether a U.S. citizen can be cast into a legal black hole with no means to challenge the basis for his detention,” Aziz Huq, Mr. Omar’s lawyer, said. “The court today reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s view that war is not a blank check as far as a citizen’s liberty is concerned.”
A spokesman for the Justice Department, Erik Ablin, said it believed that the decision would “inappropriately interfere with the executive branch’s prerogative to prosecute a war and to make good on its commitments to our allies.”
<more at the link>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/washington/10iraqi.html
Making Democracy Credible
<< I like the title of this... is gives the topic the proper significance... nice to know that with Feinstein now in charge of the committee on elections, this is going to looked into >>
Published: February 9, 2007
Time is growing short to head off more embarrassing voting machine scandals. The presidential election looms, yet nearly half of the states offer no reassuring paper trail so voters who use electronic voting machines can check that their ballot choices are accurately recorded.
With a proper sense of urgency, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who leads the Senate committee in charge of elections, is asking all of the right questions about voting technology. This week, she ordered an investigation of the case of as many as 18,000 electronic votes that turned up missing in a tight Congressional race in Florida last November.
<more at the link>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/opinion/09fri1.html?th&emc=th
:)
I don't know if it's been mentioned here before but John Kerry also announced he will not run and will focus on ending the war. I like his focus.
yes it is easier... and I think some are raised to be sheeple and therefore latch onto those types that take advantage of that.
how many times does this information have to come out in the news for people to get it?
great speech.
I like to seeing ideas like that... especially when they are putting money behind it.