The science is NOT settled. Check out today’s Globe:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/01/no_climate_debate_yes_there_is/

Not convinced? Here is prestigious climatologist who was a key author of the UN IPCC report. He doesn’t buy the hype :
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm

We have the new administration EPA censoring scientific reports from a 40 year career researcher for political reasons. They have the emails to prove it (Isn’t suppressing science what they accused the last administration of doing?):
http://www.examiner.com/x-9377-Phoenix-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Obamas-EPA-politics-and-lies-outshine-science-in-new-age-of-transparency

I also find it sad that in this entire debate, no one wants to use the N-word. If Congress and the President were actually serious about reducing carbon emissions while improving the economy then they should encourage the development of NUCLEAR POWER. They should open Yucca Mountain (now that billions of seemingly wasted dollars have been spent on it) and do what they can to encourage nuclear power.

Also, completely lost in this debate is the issue of POPULATION EXPLOSION and MASS IMMIGRATION (both legal and illegal) which drives population explosion. Very simply, having a higher population means an increased demand for electricity, and, in general, increased carbon emissions. If Congress and the President were serious about reducing carbon emissions they would end illegal immigration and either drastically reduce or impose a moratorium on legal immigration. We should also advocate for population stabilization and reduction worldwide.

Sadly, as is almost always the case, instead of actually acknowledging and addressing our real issues and instead of promoting the rational selfish economic interests of the American people, our government is going to burden the economy with new taxes during an economic depression, taxes that will probably prove to be regressive in nature.

Also, any carbon reduction benefits will probably be more than made up for by our nation’s third world rate of population explosion (we’ll have even higher carbon emissions).

Major primary pollutants produced by human activity include:

Sulfur oxides (SOx) – especially sulfur dioxide, a chemical compound with the formula SO2. SO2 is produced by volcanoes and in various industrial processes. Since coal and petroleum often contain sulfur compounds, their combustion generates sulfur dioxide. Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2, forms H2SO4, and thus acid rain.[2] This is one of the causes for concern over the environmental impact of the use of these fuels as power sources.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – especially nitrogen dioxide are emitted from high temperature combustion. Can be seen as the brown haze dome above or plume downwind of cities.Nitrogen dioxide is the chemical compound with the formula NO2. It is one of the several nitrogen oxides. This reddish-brown toxic gas has a characteristic sharp, biting odor. NO2 is one of the most prominent air pollutants.

Carbon monoxide – is a colourless, odourless, non-irritating but very poisonous gas. It is a product by incomplete combustion of fuel such as natural gas, coal or wood. Vehicular exhaust is a major source of carbon monoxide.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) – a greenhouse gas emitted from combustion but is also a gas vital to living organisms. It is a natural gas in the atmosphere.
Volatile organic compounds – VOCs are an important outdoor air pollutant. In this field they are often divided into the separate categories of methane (CH4) and non-methane (NMVOCs). Methane is an extremely efficient greenhouse gas which contributes to enhanced global warming. Other hydrocarbon VOCs are also significant greenhouse gases via their role in creating ozone and in prolonging the life of methane in the atmosphere, although the effect varies depending on local air quality. Within the NMVOCs, the aromatic compounds benzene, toluene and xylene are suspected carcinogens and may lead to leukemia through prolonged exposure. 1,3-butadiene is another dangerous compound which is often associated with industrial uses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

also
u can read more on

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=greenhouse-gas-pollution-up-despite-2008-09-26

Thanks,

Rick Hunter

Yet we regulate its presence in water bodies.

Why is that, Todd? How could Nitrogen, a non-toxic, essential fertilizer, possibly also be a pollutant?

All you’re doing with your comments is revealing that a.) you have no understanding of the carbon cycle and other basic scientific principles and
b.) you enjoy parading your ignorance as if it’s a virtue.

Unless he is mistaken (and he has been proven right about many things), isn’t President Obama mistaken in saying that the bill will “prevent the worst consequences of climate change”? Won’t it only postpone the worst consequences, i.e., the end of civilization, for a few years?

I think we should forget Al Gore’s admonition that the planet “has a fever.” It now seems evident that the planet “has an aggressive cancer” and much stronger and, unfortunately painful, medicine is needed.

I suppose this is because it’s “natural” and “non-toxic”?

Like Nitrogen, or Phosphorus?

Idiot.

My daughter WAS a corporate lawyer in AUstralia working on carbon trading and offsets, but she also was trained as an ecologist and knew how unecological most of the offsets were, and saw the trading as “permission to pollute.” Then she resigned.

An upstream carbon royalty (AKA a carbon tax at the point fossil fuels are mined) would be far more effective at BOTH reducing heat-trapping pollution and at improving the ways fossil fuels are extracted. The royalties could be assigned partially to everyone with a SSN to help offset higher fuel costs, to help fund both conservation and renewables, and lastly, to make it acceptable to corporate lobbyists, help the coal, oil and gas corporations transition to themselves providing renewables or some other way of “earning a living” which is not so dangerous to life on Earth.

BTW, we already know how to sequester carbon: KEEP IT IN THE GROUND. We do need some coal and natural gas during the transition period, but it should be mined and pumped RESPONSIBLY, cradle to grave. Only a carbon tax/royalties would pay attention to fossil fuel mining at every stage.

Also, can we talk about John Boehner’s speech on the floor where he displayed a diagram that detailed the labyrinthine interactions among myriad government agencies (old and new). Is it not true that this is the most convoluted, bureaucratic setup we have ever seen in this country?